Since the maintainers of the ArmyBuilder wh40k4 datafiles seem to be more interested in their ego trip as rules judges than as maintainers of a tool that people find useful, I have taken it on myself to make a modified datafile for the new ork codex that allows shoota boy nobs to take weapon upgrades.

As this option is supported by a published GW FAQ (in German, but GW none-the-less), and is explicitly allowed in the Adepticon/North American Tournament FAQ, I hope this file will prove useful to anyone planning to run orks at these events.

You can find the file here: http://kallend.net/40k/misc/ork08Dat.dat. Simply copy it into your existing army builder wh40k datafile directory (Default would be Program Files/ArmyBuilder3/data/AB40k4 ) over the top of the existing file with this name, and your shoota boyz will be enabled to take powerklaws. This is the only change made in this file. I don't know about other browsers, but in IE, simply follow the link, and then click File->Save As

As an open letter to the Army Builder wh40k4 maintainers, I would suggest that you evaluate what service you provide. You are not rules officials in any sense. Army Builder is a Tool. In order for a tool to be useful, it needs to serve the needs of the users, not the egos of the developers. Your stance that "We will always apply the most conservative application of RAW to our datafiles" makes the tool you offer considerably less useful, especially in disputable cases (such as the powerklaw issue here) or where large numbers of gamers (for instance, Adepticon) are following a slightly different interpretation of the rules that what you decide to enforce.

Your tool would be considerably more useful if your base rulings would be based on the most liberal interpretation of the rules, and allow individual gamers to make their own decisions if they need to apply more restrictions. It's easy for people to apply a more-conservative rule on top of a liberal system than it is to try and force a conservative tool to allow liberal interpretations.

Afterall, "Armybuilder allows it" is never going to matter in any rules dispute. You're not an official rules source. There's no need for your tool to attempt to be.

Yes, as a former user of v2 of Army Builder (since lost in a move), I'm rather appalled at how bad v3 is. It consistently crashes 90% of the time on startup. I tryed to get support on the forum they label (strangely enough) Army Builder support, and get told to e-mail support (that I'm still waiting on). I then try to post a bug I found in their forum (where they say I should), and get told to go to the other forum to post the bug (after first being told that my understanding of the rule in question is found wanting).



I expect a finished product for my money. I expect support that isn't a blatant run-around for my money. And I expect the problems that stem from an obviously flawed product to at least be addressed in a timely fashion.

[/rant]

KiMonarrez wrote:Yes, as a former user of v2 of Army Builder (since lost in a move), I'm rather appalled at how bad v3 is. It consistently crashes 90% of the time on startup. I tryed to get support on the forum they label (strangely enough) Army Builder support, and get told to e-mail support (that I'm still waiting on). I then try to post a bug I found in their forum (where they say I should), and get told to go to the other forum to post the bug (after first being told that my understanding of the rule in question is found wanting).

I've yet to have mine crash in 3 years, even on Vista. Actually, it works even better in Vista(much faster) than it did on XP.

v3 works much better for me than 2 ever did (faster, not a single crash in over a year) much more customizable for organization and the output information is highly customizable.

And as the OP did, you can change your own datafiles to suit your own needs if you want. I haven't done it, but it isan option if you are so inclined. The only math error I found during that year was Extra Armor being overcharged for IG but it was fixed in the following patch and I just pointed it out if anyone ever asked to see my list. I recommend AB for anyone who likes playing with lists, and thanks the OP for offering a fix for those that the PK Nob restriction bothers.

I've never tried to make an ork list with army builder (because I don't play em) but I did after reading this just to see what the fuss is about. It allowed me to give the nob in a mob of boyz armed with shootas a power klaw, no problem. Does me having vista change anything. I've never had a prob with army builder.

Funny thing. I downloaded a different skin, and suddenly v3.1c works fine. Not that I'm complaining, but the engineer in me chafes at the idea that it works ON ACCIDENT.

KiMonarrez wrote:Funny thing. I downloaded a different skin, and suddenly v3.1c works fine. Not that I'm complaining, but the engineer in me chafes at the idea that it works ON ACCIDENT.

Sounds like user error to me.

I dearly hope you're kidding, *snooggums*. Exactly what user error is involved to click the shortcut (or use the start menu and drop downs) to start AB3.1c (c for crap by the by) and it starts launching, and crashes with an error message?

Then, I downloaded a skin from the ab site, and now suddenly it works just fine.

That's operability by accident, not design.

*Edited to keep this a civil, PG-13 forum. My appologies. Won't happen again.

Redbeard wrote:Since the maintainers of the ArmyBuilder wh40k4 datafiles seem to be more interested in their ego trip as rules judges than as maintainers of a tool that people find useful, I have taken it on myself to make a modified datafile for the new ork codex that allows shoota boy nobs to take weapon upgrades.

As this option is supported by a published GW FAQ (in German, but GW none-the-less), and is explicitly allowed in the Adepticon/North American Tournament FAQ, I hope this file will prove useful to anyone planning to run orks at these events.

You can find the file here: http://kallend.net/40k/misc/ork08Dat.dat. Simply copy it into your existing army builder wh40k datafile directory (Default would be Program Files/ArmyBuilder3/data/AB40k4 ) over the top of the existing file with this name, and your shoota boyz will be enabled to take powerklaws. This is the only change made in this file. I don't know about other browsers, but in IE, simply follow the link, and then click File->Save As

As an open letter to the Army Builder wh40k4 maintainers, I would suggest that you evaluate what service you provide. You are not rules officials in any sense. Army Builder is a Tool. In order for a tool to be useful, it needs to serve the needs of the users, not the egos of the developers. Your stance that "We will always apply the most conservative application of RAW to our datafiles" makes the tool you offer considerably less useful, especially in disputable cases (such as the powerklaw issue here) or where large numbers of gamers (for instance, Adepticon) are following a slightly different interpretation of the rules that what you decide to enforce.

Your tool would be considerably more useful if your base rulings would be based on the most liberal interpretation of the rules, and allow individual gamers to make their own decisions if they need to apply more restrictions. It's easy for people to apply a more-conservative rule on top of a liberal system than it is to try and force a conservative tool to allow liberal interpretations.

Afterall, "Armybuilder allows it" is never going to matter in any rules dispute. You're not an official rules source. There's no need for your tool to attempt to be.

Funny thing about that...
I ran across a bunch of interesting information on GW's site about those coveted riules. They are going to be changing, so don't expect the Army builders to catch up for about ten years or so.

Grot, do you happen to have a link to said interesting information to share it with the rest of us?

@ KiMonarrez,

Please realize that AB3.1c is a finished product. What is causing the crashes is the datafile that is loading when you run AB. I know this because I also have a problem with the latest AB40k datafile for 40k. I just go back to the prior version and everything works fine. I'll have to try the different skin thing.

The people who make the 40k datafiles do it as a volunteer service. The more you abuse them, the less likely they will continue their service. Then where will the rest of us be?

Anytime you want to delve into making a comprehensive 40k datafile, please go ahead. It's a lot more complicated than it looks, and it already looks complicated.

I realize the datafiles are maintained by volunteers. My problem with it was that it didn't matter WHAT dataset I tried. 40k, BFG, Warmachine. I'd uninstall, try something slightly different, liscence to get the full version and it would crash. Damn near EVERY TIME. I really liked v2. I'd spend hours (to my wife's eternal consternation) just generating lists. Maybe now with the different skin, everything will be fine. It's still operable by accident though. I expect more polish, especially as v2 was so useful and polished (in my experience anyway).

Redbeard wrote:Since the maintainers of the ArmyBuilder wh40k4 datafiles seem to be more interested in their ego trip as rules judges than as maintainers of a tool that people find useful, I have taken it on myself to make a modified datafile for the new ork codex that allows shoota boy nobs to take weapon upgrades.

First of all, it seem s to me it's you who's on a 'ego trip', crying because you didn't get your way. The file maintainers can guarantee that you can make a legal army list with their datafile. Can you? No, you can not.

Redbeard wrote:As this option is supported by a published GW FAQ (in German, but GW none-the-less)

GW Germany has been known to take matters into their own hands before, making rulings which contradict the codices. This is just another example of that. On top of that, I can show you where the UK Grand Tournament specifically disallows what the so-called German 'FAQ' allows.

Redbeard wrote:... and is explicitly allowed in the Adepticon/North American Tournament FAQ...

Which is not an official document from Games Workshop.

Redbeard wrote:As an open letter to the Army Builder wh40k4 maintainers, I would suggest that you evaluate what service you provide. You are not rules officials in any sense. Army Builder is a Tool. In order for a tool to be useful, it needs to serve the needs of the users, not the egos of the developers. Your stance that "We will always apply the most conservative application of RAW to our datafiles" makes the tool you offer considerably less useful, especially in disputable cases (such as the powerklaw issue here) or where large numbers of gamers (for instance, Adepticon) are following a slightly different interpretation of the rules that what you decide to enforce.

And you've already had your answer. If we can't guarantee an option is legal from an official source, then it will NOT be in the datafiles

Redbeard wrote:Your tool would be considerably more useful if your base rulings would be based on the most liberal interpretation of the rules, and allow individual gamers to make their own decisions if they need to apply more restrictions. It's easy for people to apply a more-conservative rule on top of a liberal system than it is to try and force a conservative tool to allow liberal interpretations.

No it would not. It is most useful when they don't have to worry if there army list is legal or not.

Redbeard wrote: You're not an official rules source. There's no need for your tool to attempt to be.

And yet you're trying to claim that you are. Seems to be a touch hypocritical to me. Our policy stands. Unless it can be 100% assured of it's legality from an official Games Workshop source it does NOT make it into the datafiles.

No, he isn't. He is opting for a position of permisivity. Allowing for alternate rules interpretations does not presuppose that there is only one correct one. Such a position merely recognizes that there is no "correct" way to read any statement in the english (or any other) language.

So, any particular reason nobody at the AB site has deemed it necessary to check that commissar bug I found?

dogma wrote:No, he isn't. He is opting for a position of permisivity. Allowing for alternate rules interpretations does not presuppose that there is only one correct one. Such a position merely recognizes that there is no "correct" way to read any statement in the english (or any other) language.

And again, a 'permissive' datafile can not guarantee a legal army list. Our goal is to guarantee a 100% legal list according to GW's official rules. That is why we do not put out a 'permissive' datafile. If an option can not be guaranteed to be 100% legal it does not get added to the datafile.

KiMonarrez wrote:So, any particular reason nobody at the AB site has deemed it necessary to check that commissar bug I found?

I've looked at it, but I only add comments when it is a false report. You have to remember these people are volunteers and not all bug reports are necessarily commented on before they're fixed.

Ok. Cool.

Wow...all sorts of anger and frustration here.

I can certainly see players recommending that the WH40K file builders add an option (maybe under the army list rules) that allows users to check a box to allow shoota mobs to have a powerclaw wielding nob. On the other hand, that's and added feature, not a bug or requirement. I'm sure there are plenty of issues that deal with unquestionably legitimate army list issues, so something like this goes on the back burner...or isn't addressed at all, as it isn't always legal. I don't see how you can get upset that people who volunteer their time to make such a useful product don't cater to your specific needs.

Without them, we'd be doing it all via pencil and paper or homebrewed excel documents. No thanks.

As for AB version 3 vs 2, I've had no problems with 3, but if you do, that is something I can see getting upset about. That's a product you've paid for, and if you don't get your money's worth, the company should make it right (refund or help correct).

Grimaldi wrote:Wow...all sorts of anger and frustration here.

As for AB version 3 vs 2, I've had no problems with 3, but if you do, that is something I can see getting upset about. That's a product you've paid for, and if you don't get your money's worth, the company should make it right (refund or help correct).

EXACTLY!!! More to the point. I bought it 2-3 weeks ago and until I decided to download a skin from the site (on a whim) it hasn't worked, as in damn near wouldn't EVER launch. I purchased a $40.00 error message. Damn skippy I was mad.

lol and people ask why I quit working on the AB files!

ungratefulness was always #1.

they do it out of love for the game, man. and they do it on their own dime.

they must play by the rules as written even if they aren't always crystal clear...in which case you go for the toughest line instead of the 'well maybe this is what they meant' line.

funny thing is that the GT ruling about the PK nobs in shoota units is in no way over-reachingly "official" since it is part of the rulings for the GT and nothing else

Alot of stores I know they allow the PK nob because of the difference in views given by the many many many (many) arguements that have already occured

Doesn't make sense, Stelek. If you know that the majority of users play in groups (or even tourneys!) that allow nobs to take PKs, it is an obvious hit to utility to prevent them from doing so in the files you provide. Plus, it is entirely possible to allow users to add a Klaw while making it clear that it is not strictly allowed--many illegal options in AB are addable, but will show up in red with a validation warning. These are there by accident (because, I suppose, no more elegant solution has been thought of), but if it is all right for these to exist, it should be all right to add one more very useful instance by design.

Ghaz:

First of all, it seem s to me it's you who's on a 'ego trip', crying because you didn't get your way. The file maintainers can guarantee that you can make a legal army list with their datafile. Can you? No, you can not.

I can guarantee that too. My AB file only consists of two entries (no upgrades):

HQ (1-2): Warboss

Troops (2-6): Shoota boyz

Does it guarantee a legal list? Sure. Would anyone use it? Of course not.

No it would not. It is most useful when they don't have to worry if there army list is legal or not.

How good of you to tell your users what is most useful for them!

"It would be really useful if I could indicate in AB that my Nob has a PK."

"No, it would not."

"But everyone I know plays this way. So do the guys I've talked to who play at other stores. So does this particular tourney I'm joining."

"Pish-posh! It's for your own good. Trust me."

TragicNut wrote:Grot, do you happen to have a link to said interesting information to share it with the rest of us?

Best I can do is to direct you to GW's American site. Go to the 40K stuff and its in there. talks about the upcoming changes, etc.

Bignutter wrote:funny thing is that the GT ruling about the PK nobs in shoota units is in no way over-reachingly "official" since it is part of the rulings for the GT and nothing else

And who said it was 'official'? We're disallowing the option because we're not 100% sure it's legal, not because the UK GT House Rules say it's not.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:
How good of you to tell your users what is most useful for them!

So you want to be the one who tells them what 'most useful' then how about you write the datafiles. Here's a 40K datafile that you can use to make your army list. Of course, there's no guarantee that the list will be legal, but who cares! It's 'useful'! More like useless. And if the datafiles were allowing something you thought was illegal you'd be crying and throwing a hissy fit as well claiming that AB is 'not useful' because it allows you to make an illegal army. Why don't you grow up and instead of insulting the datafiles authors for making a decision you actually do something about it and either get GW to publish a FAQ, write your own datafiles or act like an adult and respect the decision of people who are volunteering their time and effort to produce datafiles for the public.

I personally love AB.

I've never had a problem with it, or with the definitions files. It's always run well on the three systems I've had it installed on and I'm always quite happy with how it presents the lists I write.

I find it makes list writing and tinkering painless and infinitely easier than trying to do it with pen and paper.

I can't think of a single situation where something that I was legally able to put into a list was disallowed by Army Builder.

In the couple of situations where I’ve wanted to do something “illegal” I’ve just amened the print out by hand (or tinkered with the HTML file & printed the amended list).

I say keep up the good work AB40kmaintainers!

My only one gripe with Army Builder is the licensing system (why would I pay LW when it’s the volunteers that write the updates and keep the program useful? …. LW hasn’t updated AB in almost 2 years now).

**Edit: Punctuation & Grammar

Because it's still their product you're buying, that's why.

I'm interested to see what stance the folks at the Warhammer Army Roster portal are going to take to disputed rules. A detail like that could make them very competitive versus AB. That and being free...

It seems silly not to allow the option, but post a warning that it may or may not be legal that comes up when the option is flagged, and a notification when the list is printed out.

Ghaz:

So you want to be the one who tells them what 'most useful'

No, I am one of the users, telling you what I find most useful. Many others are telling you the same thing.

then how about you write the datafiles.

I don't know how to, but thankfully someone has done that for me. Kudos, Redbeard.

Here's a 40K datafile that you can use to make your army list. Of course, there's no guarantee that the list will be legal, but who cares! It's 'useful'! More like useless.

Define 'useless'.

And if the datafiles were allowing something you thought was illegal you'd be crying and throwing a hissy fit as well claiming that AB is 'not useful' because it allows you to make an illegal army.

Oh rubbish. AB is a handy notation tool, not a ruleset. I rely on my dex, as does almost everyone I know who uses AB. Look at YMDC: countless questions start with "AB says this", but the answers come from rules quotes. Nobody expects otherwise.

Why don't you grow up and instead of insulting the datafiles authors for making a decision

I have insulted no one, Ghaz. Please, show me a single instance in my posts here or elsewhere where I have insulted you or any other maintainer.

you actually do something about it and either get GW to publish a FAQ, write your own datafiles or act like an adult and respect the decision of people who are volunteering their time and effort to produce datafiles for the public.

How exactly am I not "respecting [your] decision"? Am I at your house threatening you at gunpoint? Am I launching DoS attacks on your website? No, I am telling you quite calmly why I think that your project would be better off doing X rather than Y.

The thing about doing things "for the public" is that the public, while (usually) grateful for what you do, isn't simply going to lap up everything you give them. If you are unwillling to listen to what the public thinks of your service--and by "listen", I do not necessarily mean bow to our arguments, but at least accept them graciously--then you are, in this specific instance, not meeting your stated aim.

What a load of crock. You're there dictating to us how the AB files should be yet you claim you're not telling anyone what's 'useful' and what's not? Right. The fact is that the policy will remain the same because the people who care enough to write the datafiles have received enough feedback to know what the majority of users find 'useful', and it's not worrying if every little option that the files present is legal or not.

I'd like to chime and say that while I love the AB files, I think the maintainers may have jumped the gun a bit with this decision. I'm sure it was made at least partly because of a policy, but it comes across, not as an implementation of a new policy, but as a statement.

I'm clearly not going to create my own datafiles, and maybe you have enough feedback to know that users would rather be 100% certain of the legality of their lists rather than have the most flexibility in creating lists that are fully accepted and legal in many areas. I was always under the impression that AB was meant to be a tool, and legality and verification were up to a TO. If there has been a shift, then I apologize.

On a more personal note, the spirited nature of your comments, Ghaz, comes across to me as being defensive. When Yakface explained why a decision for the adepticon FAQ was reached, it was much more impersonal and matter of fact. I know that in volunteer organizations there can be a tendency for politics and the like, and if there was a nasty fight in the dev community about this, nobody would be suprised.

I think a compromise solution, perhaps of making the option selectable but having it throw up a caution or warning, would be better suited to keep all users happy.

Ghaz, I am telling you what is useful to me, as one of many users. That is all. I am not "dictating to [you] how the AB files should be" any more than the people who post or write to you in support are. They support your decision because it is a decision they share; I post arguing against it because it is a decision I do not. Kindly learn to differentiate between feedback and a personal attack. Cheers.

Polonius wrote:I think a compromise solution, perhaps of making the option selectable but having it throw up a caution or warning, would be better suited to keep all users happy.

Normally I would agree, but the problem with this approach is that many people would simply ignore the warning and make their list anyways. If the Maintainer group also applied that same warning to the printouts(indicating it was a questionble option) the user community would still complain as they woudln't want that on their list.

In my local gaming area(mind you that is the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan area) many game organizers require lists for armies in advance and actually prefer AB lists as oposed to any other system(including hand written). This is because they understand that the options allowed within AB will always be correct based on the strictest approach to the rules. Do they allow alternate rulings that AB doesn't always allow for, 'Yes', But these are handled on a situation by situation basis and are handled by the player simply saving the approriate points in their list and Manually editing (In handwriting) the change on the printout. This way the printed list is still accurate and the edit are clearly noted.

If the datafiles themselves allowed all these different rules options; first, the files would be harder to handle (many views for everything and multiple added warnings to display would have to be coded for adding untold amounts of time to update new codexes as they are released, what, its now going to take more than a month for a new codex at minimum?????) and second, the output datafiles would take even longer to review, for games, given the vast majority of alternate views that exist for every army due to poorly written Codexes and equally poorly supported FAQs by the developer themselves.

Honestly, I would like to have everything myself, but that isn't feasible if you want a tool that is able to support the needs of everyone. I want to know that any list my opponent may show up with from AB is 100% legal. It concerns me extremely that others in this very thread have admitted to editing the text of the output file to make their 'corrections'. What if those corrections were in fact wrong and gave my opponent an advantage because I didnt own their codex to double-check everything. No, I would much rather know without doubt that the lists being provided are correct and if there is a dispute have my opponent bring it to my attention and we take that time to agree or not. Personally for the Nob issue, it would be an allow from me, but I know others who I game with that would not allow it(including 1 that is an Ork player himself and believes the rule has been changed from 3rd and now doesn't use PKs in his shoota Boyz mobs). That is his choice though.

Now, instead of everyone continuing to beat this dead horse, please continue to contact GW. Let them know that its an extreme displeasure that the FAQ for your specific army is not updated. Let them know that its making it hard for you to enjoy your gaming time when you have to constantly argue with opponents to allow you to take options that are not clear within your codex. Let them know that without proper support and continually updated FAQs the 40k game is not going to stay a fun experience for you.

Only by continually bringing this to the attention of GW will this ever be fixed.

Those are well reasoned points, and I guess I am behind the times in terms of accepting the validity of AB printouts. At the risk of repeating myself, I still don't see how it would hurt the new mission of AB to include a flag if a certain option (that may or may not be legal, depending on your jurisdiction) is taken, but clearly a decision has been made. I don't play orks myself, so what are players doing to get around this? Simply ending short, and adding the klaw by hand?

Polonius wrote:Those are well reasoned points, and I guess I am behind the times in terms of accepting the validity of AB printouts. At the risk of repeating myself, I still don't see how it would hurt the new mission of AB to include a flag if a certain option (that may or may not be legal, depending on your jurisdiction) is taken, but clearly a decision has been made. I don't play orks myself, so what are players doing to get around this? Simply ending short, and adding the klaw by hand?

Yes, For my lists and others in my area, they simply save the required amount of points for each of their affected mobs and hand note it on the printout which is then communicated to their opponent or the Tournament Organizer prior to game play. This is also the same thing that would happen with any disputed ruling in which the clear rule is not available form GW via FAQ. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another instance though right now, but I know they do exist.

Not to stir the pot... but you guys (the 40k maintainers) might wanna check this out. It's from the v3 authoring kit manual. Specifically, this portion addressing the changes from v2 to v3.

Wolf Lair about AB 3.0 wrote:
Basic Objectives

The following is quick recap of the primary objectives set forth when work on Army Builder V3.0 was begun.

-Decrease the number of hard limits imposed by Army Builder and flag validation errors instead, allowing more flexibility for friendly games with special (i.e. loose) criteria.
-Eliminate the hard-wired exceptions model of V2.x. The exceptions model was driven by all of the various attributes used to apply changes and perform validation.
-Make Army Builder more powerful and easier to use for end-users by re-working the user-interface and adding lots of new capabilities.
-Offer users a high level of customization of the user-interface.
-Provide authors with significant flexibility so that all the existing game systems are better handled and new game systems can be more easily accommodated in the future.
-Simplify and streamline the data file authoring process.
-Support all the game system mechanics for which V2.x currently does a poor job (or fails utterly to support).
-Lay the foundation for adding inventory management in the future.
-Provide full support for localization of both Army Builder and data files.

Seems to me that the maintainers have "lost their way", if you will, and reintrodiced something from 2.0 that 3.0 was specifically designed to address. Get off the high horse Ghaz. On this you're wrong. Just add the disclaimer and allow him to use the tool as intended.

Perhaps you're the one who should get off you're high horse claiming that you have even an inkling of what the majority of the users want in the datafiles.

Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

I'll reiterate. Wolflair SPECIFICALLY stated they wanted 3.0 to have looser rules so you COULD do exactly like he's asking, and then throw up a validation message. You re-introduced the problem/issue/error/whateveryouchosetocallit.

Not trying to start a flamewar over this, but it smacks of petulant "I don't wanna." Yeah, we understand you don't necessarily agree, and aren't 100% certain it's correct. You're also (by definition) not 100% certain it's not correct. Allow the loose rule (as intended) and throw up the validation message/warning. Nobody is asking you to be 100% correct. They're asking you to allow the usability of the tool they purchased.

As for what the "majority of the users want". If they don't want it, they won't give the powerklaw to the nob. It's the same as the Stability Control on my car. The button to turn it off is there for those who want it. I have never used it, and probably never will, just like most drivers who have bought cars like mine, but the option is there. Having the option is all he's asking.

If you know another set of data file authors that can do a better job creating files, FOR FREE, for the public at NO CHARGE, then by all means go there and be happy.
Ok that's off my chest.
The set of people that create the 40k file do the best they can to give everyone a file, to use(for a program that they aren't selling and are not receiving compensation to do so). I am happy to call these people my friends, and there is no reason why anyone should be up in arms about a something free(the file is on trial, not the program, as Lone Wolf refuses to create files because of this type of situation). If the file is not the way you want it then change it, go for it! For those not programmingly inclined, you do know how to use a pencil, right? Just pencil in your changes, atleast then people will know that the it might be a questionable circumstance.
It is clearly stated(regardless to what Army Builder says) that AB40k.org is an INDEPENDENT entity, that has a list of specific rules on their site that are followed to the T.
I fully agree with your comments Ghaz. Some people just want to have a file that is the way they want it, regardless to the chance that their list may not be 100% legal. I would prefer to have a file that is designed to error on the side of legality when it comes to what is published by GW/FW.
Along with what jlong has stated above, I will proceed to regularly contact GW, asking for those published clarifications that we all need as a gaming communtity when a badly written codex comes out. Hopefully if we all start working together we may actually get somewhere.

To be fair to both sides, there are quick and simple solutions for either party. People who can used Klaws but AB won't allow it can simply write them in. People who can't use Klaws could have a warning or caution or a checked option in Army Rules box.

I do agree with KiMonarrez in that the attitude and arguments put forth against any option to use Klaws sounds weak. The current AB file allows for Imperial Armor, VDR, and lots of other things not allowed at tournaments or even in most casual play. I simply fail to see how including it as an option, with no Klaw as default, hurts anybody's use of the program. I do see how not allowing it at all does hurt the use of the program, if only a little bit.

All in all, it's a trifle, but it's a trifle either way...

Tournament play is not the deciding factor what makes the ab files, it published rules from either FW or GW.

Not affiliated with Wolflair?!?!

I check for updates using AB and it gives me the one's you've developed and maintain.

If I, as an end user wish the product I purchased to have a loose ruleset, exactly as advertised and the maintainers (volunteer or not) don't provide that, guess what. It's still your issue. Much the same as candystripers in hospitals, you guys are volunteers (whom I deeply respect the service you provide), but that doesn't mean a candystriper can start medicating as he/she sees fit.

If this remains an issue as such, I will demand a full refund of the money I spent for a product that didn't work AT ALL after I bought it, works now on accident, and then doesn't provide the service/operability of the product as advertised. I would spread the word for others to do the same as well. Enough people start doing that, see how long you remain an "independent entity."

*edited after re-reading Fyrebyrds post*

I agree we should try to keep the pressure on GW to make a better product in the first place. I'm not holding my breath though, if past experience is anything to go by.

Ghaz, the fact is that many ork players who are attending adepticon want a datafile that allows them to take an option that has a legal GW FAQ supporting it, as well as an event ruling supporting it.

It's the biggest GW event in North America, and you guys are, for whatever reason, hamfistedly refusing to enable your datafiles support what the attendees of that event need. So I posted a version that does what you will not allow.

It's a shame, because I'd much prefer to be able to just use the datafiles that you guys work on, but your egos have gotten in the way of utility. Why not add the useful options that you might not personally agree with, and then add a "RAW" ruleset option that disables them. Wouldn't that make the most people happy without doing a lot of work?

KiMonarrez wrote:Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

OK, Lets be clear. AB doesn't 'allow' this and only show a validation warning. Its a warning to indicate the error of your list. This isn't a point in which the user is allowed to 'choose' to continue, but it's a point to say 'HEY' you made a mistake and it 'MUST' be fixed. Not every rules variation is able to be cleanly coded for in AB and thus must be handled with a less controlled warning instead of simply preventing them outright. This is not to say they cannot be prevented, but for programming ease many cases are handled this way.

Case in point: I maintain the Necron Datafiles which the Necron Codex states no more than 1 C'tan may be included in the Army. AB allows you to add both(incorrectly) as its a heck of a lot easier for me to allow this and provide an alert for the error, than to code a convoluted method of removing the option for the C'tan upon adding one. This isn't a choice the user gets in making his army, the Codex is clear on the rule.

You continue to claim that warnings have been provided to allow greater flexibility, but that just isn't the case. The rules of games are very concrete and provide a way to do something and ways to not do something. Some coding methods allow these to be handled by not providing options, but others must be handled as warnings.

KiMonarrez wrote:I'll reiterate. Wolflair SPECIFICALLY stated they wanted 3.0 to have looser rules so you COULD do exactly like he's asking, and then throw up a validation message. You re-introduced the problem/issue/error/whateveryouchosetocallit.

Again, see my point above. Wolflair has NO stance on how the tool is used to create specific datafiles. They have provided a tool that allows many options, but that is not to say ALL options should be used in every instance. Clearly, fair and legal lists should always be the goal for every game system. I doubt this would be a concern within GW's own army building software as they allow NO rules disputed options anyway. Of course, that software is never updated.

KiMonarrez wrote:Not trying to start a flamewar over this, but it smacks of petulant "I don't wanna." Yeah, we understand you don't necessarily agree, and aren't 100% certain it's correct. You're also (by definition) not 100% certain it's not correct. Allow the loose rule (as intended) and throw up the validation message/warning. Nobody is asking you to be 100% correct. They're asking you to allow the usability of the tool they purchased.

What EXACTLY is gained by a validation warning? Will the opponent of the said army KNOW about the warning? If we throw the validation warning and its ignored then the oponents doesn't know its a disputed variance of the rules. If we include the warning on the output page, we continue to get this same argument rehashed again as we are saying the list may not be legal. Users complain about that as well. We at one time tried providing this methodology, but due to the hassle of complaining users then on the outputs it was decided to eliminate these completely by not allowing anything but the strictest legal view possible. Again, this IS NOT an AB issue or a datafile maintainer issue. It is a GW issue where they MUST provide a clear FAQ to fix the disputed rule.

KiMonarrez wrote:As for what the "majority of the users want". If they don't want it, they won't give the powerklaw to the nob. It's the same as the Stability Control on my car. The button to turn it off is there for those who want it. I have never used it, and probably never will, just like most drivers who have bought cars like mine, but the option is there. Having the option is all he's asking.

And again, the option HE is asking for would allow him to create a list indicating a valid army to play against YOU. Would YOU want this if you DID NOT agree with the disputed rule? Again, if the warning is displayed(you would know about it) but HE would continue to complain that we are saying it's possibly NOT valid) hence why we don't allow it at all.

Wolflair will not now and will never ever be able to provide you with files for any game system until they enter into a licensing agreement.

Since GW are pricks with their agreements, and they are money losers for the other side, odds are Wolflair (yes, all two of them) will reject any such agreement...

Since GW has proven they cannot code even simple websites (sorry guys) let alone flash or hire anything remotely close to a competent programmer...

Since GW cannot make web updates like oh all the other companies eating into GW's market share in huge quantities (as a user, I like to call it active customer service) and their support for their own product was so poor they'd not update a army for YEARS (where the AB maintainers update exactly 1 month after the Codex release, every time)...

Since the 'free' web version is well pretty craptacular and in murky legal waters, well good luck with that as any kind of solution. It's because the AB maintainers have listened to GW issues and are volunteers that the project still lives on...

You can complain all you want, and while Ghaz isn't exactly Mr. Personality until you are willing to put in the hundreds of hours a month the many people at that site do to create the product, you really should be happy you have a working product. No idea what you are going off about, KiMonarrez. Performance issues on a modern day computer? What, 21k and a couple threads is too much? Stop using a computer from 92...oh wait, it runs just fine on those. You get exactly what you paid for in AB, a program that lets you use third party datafiles to create army lists and validate them. Read that EULA again...

Many game companies would not have as many dedicated people playing their games that they do without AB and the volunteers that create the datafiles.
Ignoring GW's track record of not doing this, most of the companies use AB as a tool themselves to see how their own published rules stack up and issuing fixes in part based on how easy it is to analyze a given army when using AB. I laugh at people that create excel files for an army and then snort at AB. Usually one ass drubbing of their sh*t army with a AB refined one is enough to convince them to spend 30$.

Good luck using anything else, or doing better yourself.
Lots of ungrateful asshats around. I see quite a few in this thread who should be happy there's an alternative to paper and pen that takes all of 30 seconds to create an army list from.

What do I know. Oh yeah, I ran that silly group of misfits for years. Migrated the files from 2.0 to 3.0, and just fyi this quote:

"Decrease the number of hard limits imposed by Army Builder and flag validation errors instead, allowing more flexibility for friendly games with special (i.e. loose) criteria."

You've no idea what that really means. So I'll explain it to you.

Number of hard limits imposed by AB meant the damn program wouldn't let you program in alot of stuff that the 40k maintainers (not anybody else) wanted to.

You know, the 'cool' and 'fun' stuff. This is what drove alot of the AB3.0 development, it was the 40K maintainers wanting to give MORE than they already were. Gee, volunteers signing up for more work--and do you think they got their resource books for free from GW? No, they went and spent their money on it, for something they'd probably never use themselves, merely because they felt there was a need.

It had nothing to do with 'are power klaws on nobs' legal or any crap like that.

Fact is, in the RAW it isn't legal. In the RAI, it is. In tournament games, well you better hope the tournament organizer allows it else that PK nob is going off the table. In friendly games, who cares what you do? The maintainers do! They added all the FW stuff, all the white dwarf lists, all the summer campaigns...most of which isn't legal for tournament games.

So before you go off on the maintainers not allowing a 'obvious' error read that Ork Codex again and since the rule is NOT clear that you can do something, it does not go into the official datafiles.

Being this way has made the datafiles as good as they are, for many many years. GW hasn't come down on the volunteers much, and I'm pretty sure if they wanted PK nobs to exist in the datafiles word would 'slip' to the maintainers, and it'd go in.

It's not like they're some underground anti-GW hacking community or something, they're right there and easy to contact.

jlong05 wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

Now look at the 2nd little paragraph I wrote. I currently am trying to do something patently legal and supported by the rules in the codex (on page 40) for the imperial guard. AB allows me to do it, and then flags a verification warning. But I can still do it. I can still print it. I'll mail you a copy I printed up if you like. Has the 2 validation errors on it bright as day.

That's all he's asking.

In friendly, or tournament play for that matter, you should (and are sometimes required to) let your opponent look at your list.

"Oh ho!!!! AB says this isn't legal."
"Well, here's my codex, let's look at the rule in question and discuss it."

*ending 1* "I see your point. I guess AB might be wrong on this. We'll play it as we agreed."
*ending 2* "I disagree with you, I don't think it's right." *and here we either dice it, or I concede the point*

This is all he's asking. Is it REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK?!?!?!?

Sorry, let me get this right redbeard.



A vocal minority (adepticon whiners) want to run what isn't legal in the Codex and is (despite your saying it is) NOT supported by GW at the moment.

In case you didn't know this, all of GW's different countries run themselves. What applies in Germany does not, actually, apply in the United States. In case you didn't know this, my apologies, wake up and smell the coffee.

Everyone else playing by the 'rules' would include:

All GW players (except German ones) that aren't going to Adepticon...so pretty much everyone else should use a illegal list because they (the Adepticon players) want to?

Well, here's my response to that: F*ck 'em. If they want lascannons on their lootas, we should allow this? What if GW Italy says they can, for +5 points?

Let's all slide down the slippery slope of whining = results. Like all good Americans.

Or should I say, Adepticon-Americans.

:S :S

KiMonarrez wrote:Not affiliated with Wolflair?!?!

I check for updates using AB and it gives me the one's you've developed and maintain.

If I, as an end user wish the product I purchased to have a loose ruleset, exactly as advertised and the maintainers (volunteer or not) don't provide that, guess what. It's still your issue. Much the same as candystripers in hospitals, you guys are volunteers (whom I deeply respect the service you provide), but that doesn't mean a candystriper can start medicating as he/she sees fit.

If this remains an issue as such, I will demand a full refund of the money I spent for a product that didn't work AT ALL after I bought it, works now on accident, and then doesn't provide the service/operability of the product as advertised. I would spread the word for others to do the same as well. Enough people start doing that, see how long you remain an "independent entity."

*edited after re-reading Fyrebyrds post*

I agree we should try to keep the pressure on GW to make a better product in the first place. I'm not holding my breath though, if past experience is anything to go by.

Also you should understand that the Lonewolf License agreement states that the datafiles are provided as is with no guarentee for them. This is why they also provide a Datafile Authoring Kit, which you can use to CREATE your own datafiles. The License you paid is for the AB solftware only with NO datafiles. These are created outside of the tool and are provided as is, when available.

Oh, and Stelek. The computer is new last year. I recieved the "support" e-mail yesterday. It consisted (basically) of "do what you have already done twice, and hope it works this time." I'm paraphrasing, of course, as I had already uninstalled, redownloaded and tried reinstalling it about 5 times. Care to know the definition of insanity?!?!

As for tech savyness (is that a word?), I would often maintain AB for myself in v2 as the updates were somewhat erratic, and sometimes a long time in coming (as is to be expected if a new Chapter approved just came out or something). I'm more than capable of doing it for v3. The hardest part is figuring out what the files are named, and I haven't the time to sit down and decypher it at the moment.

Basically, SOD OFF.

Well, if AB doesn't work try this:

Run MSCONFIG.

Go to services tab.

Click 'hide all microsoft services'.

Click 'disable all'.

Go to the startup tab.

Click 'disable all'.

Disable any AV or anti-spyware program running. Especially the 'free' popular ones given to you on new PC's, they're almost always gak.

Reboot your machine.

If AB won't run then, I'll laugh my ass off. (Oh, and make sure your hard drive isn't full...very little runs well when it is).

I'll sod off later when the wifes done the laundry.

The problems in v2 are why I took over the datafiles. I got sick and tired of them being gak, so I did something about it instead of whine like a little bitch.

One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

Polonius wrote:One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

I don't think Ghaz (or anyone else) has said that shooty klaws are illegal.

Personally I don't want them to be, because it ruins my planned Ork army.

They may or may not be 100% illegal, but until GW gets off it's ass and says so in a US or UK 'official' FAQ it's not possible for the maintainers to allow it without rewriting the rules.

Something you might note doesn't sit well with alot of people (thus the bitching about the adepticon faq).

Just something to keep in mind--volunteers don't get to override the rules and keep doing what they're doing without GW tapping them on the shoulder with a 'oiy mate, got a Q for ya'. I know, I had quite a few of those when I was running the maintainers. So the policy is don't piss in the GW sandbox, and everyone can keep playing there.

A vocal minority (adepticon whiners) want to run what isn't legal in the Codex and is (despite your saying it is) NOT supported by GW at the moment.

I believe there's a 12+ page long thread somewhere on this site discussing whether or not this is a legal option. That's hardly cut&dried "isn't legal". That's something that's poorly written and open to interpretation. 12+ pages of discussion means it's open to interpretation. I don't want AB to support illegal options, I want them to take the more liberal approach with the poorly written entries that are open to interpretation, and create datafiles that allow the end-user to decide for themselves which interpretation they want to go with.

In case you didn't know this, all of GW's different countries run themselves. What applies in Germany does not, actually, apply in the United States. In case you didn't know this, my apologies, wake up and smell the coffee.

Is it possible for you to post without being an ass?

Let's all slide down the slippery slope of whining = results. Like all good Americans.

1) slipery slope is a logical falacy, so whatever.
2) I'm not American

Polonius wrote:One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

And that is why they are not allowed in the files. NO MAINTAINER has stated that Shoota Nobs with Klaws IS 100% illegal. The problem is based on the wording is a HUGE grey area. As such we can't say if they are legal or not. We have some GW sponsored sites and events saying Yes its allowed, and others saying No its not allowed. As such, the Maintainers have decided that by NOT allowing it(and granting the user to edit manually by writing in the change) the files are 100% legal. Doing the other would indicate that the legality of the rules are now in question which is what is trying to be avoided. Again, this is a moot point. You have the ability to edit the files yourself, and others have by the OP statement at the beginning. Unfortunatly, AB's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.

If GW would simply update ist FAQs more regularly, or properly playtest their rules codexes, or maybe, just maybe, properly EDIT their Rules books, these issues can be resolved and avoided in the future. Until then, the datafiles will continue to be strict, Some users will be upset, and others will be happy.

I never really worried about it in the past, but its clear that editing of the files and even the printouts happens, so honestly, I cannot trust anyone I am not previously familiar with to create a valid list. This of course will just delay my gaming experience as now I clearly will have to fully evaluate every army I play against. Sad isn't it.

Hmm, I understand and appreciate your responses, but I suppose my question in response would be this: Things such as older special characters, alternate force charts for non-standard missions, apocolypse, COD, and most relevantly, the Cursed founding Space marine lists are all opponents or TO permission, yet are still all selectable options in the New Army window. While these are legal according to GW, they are specifically opponents permssion.

While the question of ShootyClaws isn't exactly the same, why not make Klaws opponents permission, just like any other option? Because the rules can go either way, the Klaw has effectively become opponents permission. Bury the option, so that folks using the codex rules won't accidently unlock it, add the warning like the cursed founding has that the rule is unresolved, and then everybody is happy?

I can understand wanting to keep the files kosher, but I could add a Warhound titan to Orks using totally legal, albiet opponents permisison only, rules found in the data file.

There is precedent for adding options that aren't always legal, is my point.

Problem with this line of thinking, Polonius, is this:

GW sets what is opponent's permission.

Since they didn't set the PK to opponent's permission, it means it cannot be set to opponent's permission without GW actually doing so.

Which they'll never do. It'll either be legal, or left FUBAR.

FUBAR means it won't go in the datafiles.

Polonius wrote:Hmm, I understand and appreciate your responses, but I suppose my question in response would be this: Things such as older special characters, alternate force charts for non-standard missions, apocalypse, COD, and most relevantly, the Cursed founding Space marine lists are all opponents or TO permission, yet are still all selectable options in the New Army window. While these are legal according to GW, they are specifically opponent’s permission.

While the question of ShootyClaws isn't exactly the same, why not make Klaws opponents permission, just like any other option? Because the rules can go either way, the Klaw has effectively become opponent’s permission. Bury the option, so that folks using the codex rules won't accidently unlock it, add the warning like the cursed founding has that the rule is unresolved, and then everybody is happy?

I can understand wanting to keep the files kosher, but I could add a Warhound titan to Orks using totally legal, albeit opponents permission only, rules found in the data file.

There is precedent for adding options that aren't always legal, is my point.

Although Stelek beat me to the reply, he is correct. You have identified a solid list of alternate (opponent’s permission) rules. But they have been identified by GW and/or FW specifically as opponents permission. Opponents Permission is simply a rule that says, 'although these have been designed, maybe tested, and seem fun' they are not part of any legal army rules and as such must be agreed to by your opponent first. Mainly this is because those specific rules are found in alternate source locations that may not be available to the general public. Not every LGS carries FW products and books, and not every person is privy to every GW rules set that was provided through Whitedwarf, so, often these get released as opponents permission to allow an opponent the option to say No to a game. Tournaments in many cases allow or disallow these rules outright so that decision is made prior to any games being setup. The Ork Powerklaw is not an Opponents permission rule from a GW or FW standpoint. It's a broken rule is a new rulebook that is unclear on the actual availability of the option. Although it may be played as opponent’s permission in friendly games or at tournament events, it is not ruled that way from GW. As the effort the maintainers try to do is a 100% always legal army list as identified by GW or FW the PK will have to wait for a FAQ update. The rule sets you identified 'are' opponent’s permission, but are still fully 100% legal army lists and options as indicated by GW and/or FW, they simply advise you get your opponents permission first. That is why those have been included within the AB datafiles.

Thank you for discussing this with a level head, it is generally better than the typical flaming that tends to arise from these sorts of discussions. And as you have provided examples of situations that are similar I wanted to personally acknowledge your efforts. Please understand that this has nothing to do with Soap Boxes, High Horses, or Egos. It is simply an effort by gamers to provide gamers with accurate tools for gaming. If we all ambiguity to the datafiles, we introduce more issues and concerns than we gain in user friendliness and community happiness. This is from ears, quite literally, of doing datafile maintenance on the 40k files. No matter what we will always have the user that wants something added that isn't there because rule A isn't being evaluated the way they would evaluate it. When it’s black and white it’s easy to fix, but when it’s grey, we have to lean to the cautionary side and make something not allowed until the ruling becomes clear.

As indicated before, as the datafiles are maintained in English and is supported by developers in the US and UK, only the US or UK sites are used is validation of rules changes. This isn't to say other sites make good rules updates, it’s to say, I don't speak other languages nor am I qualified to understand the basis for a change made in another language. Again, I ask the user community of the files to contact GW to have the rules updated via FAQ. This is more than an AB file issue, it's a GAME issue. The GAME is broken when there is grey in the rules. Have them fix it in Black and White.

If you can do a great job maintaining these files for years and develope any sort of ego about it, then you're a better man than I, but that's neither here nor there.

I worry that your (Jlong and Stelek)'s line of reasoning is influenced by a desire to reach a foregone conclusion. The argument against including Shooty Klaws while keeping other opponents permission stuff is simple: GW says specials characters are legal, just opponents permission only, and Klaws aren't legal by GW, so therefore not OP. Simple enough, really.

The problem there is that it assumes that Shooty Klaws are inherently illegal, when there inherently ambigous. Here's my line of reasoning:
Codex Orks is legal
I read the entry on boys, and see that there is an ambiguity.
The RAW can go either way (as dicussions ad nauseum show)
I apply my logic and reason, and decide that yes, they are allowed.
However, because I know that the rule is ambigous, I realize that I will have to brief every opponent and ask every TO if they agree with my assesment.

At that point, the rule has effectively become Opponents Permission. the only way it wouldn't be is if there were no valid way for the Klaw to be legal, which is essentially the argument you are making. Keep in mind that GW's policy on rules disputes is to consult the rules, consult the FAQ, try to work out the RAW, try to work out the disagreement amiably, dice off; in that order.

If you walk into the process assuming Shooty Klaws is illegal, which from Stelek's posts here and in the past he clearly does, then your position makes a ton of sense: how can an illegal option ever be made legal? If, however, you approach it from a "It seems legal but I won't be shocked if people call me on it" angle.... well, I think the result is a bit different.

I use AB every day. The system is in and of itself the most useful tool a 40k player can utilize.

Stelek-i agree/disagre with a lot of your responses. What I mean is
"Yeah Stelek is SPOT ON with that point!", and then
"Crikey, Stelek can be a duffer!".
Still , Dakka would not be the same without you Sir.

Apart from a few little niggling points I have with AB(also considering my lazy-ass who won't do anything about it! lol) I love the program.

@ Polonius- You Sir, are the paragon of polite. I loved reading your well thought out posts, that never decended to verbally attacking people/opinions. Good on you mate!

Ambiguity is not for you, I, yakface, the 40k maintainers...or pretty much anyone to resolve except for GW.

There are many poorly written rules in the 40k universe. Sadly, this is one of them. In the same Codex, the rules for the bike mounted guns are different yet I don't see anyone yelling about making a new AB file because the gun stats don't show them to be twin-linked (which they are).

Why? Because warbikers aren't that good, and for purposes of the adepticon only warbosses are going to be mounted on bikes, and odds are no one will care if they shoot or not.

Why is this relevant? Because it is obvious to me (and probably a whole hell of a lot of other people) that quite a few of the players that attend the adepticon are whining pricks who want to have the power klaw on shooty mobs because it is a very powerful option and if they can't get it are going to kick up a shitstorm about it.

Doesn't change the fact it isn't legal in the rest of the warhammer world, and regardless of what yakface changed the rules to say in the adepticon faq the rulebook isn't somehow "ambigious". It's really quite clear. You can't have a power klaw on a shoota boyz nob.

How does an illegal option get made legal?

GW changes it.

Not you, me, yakface, the 40k maintainers, or anyone else.

Being able to play with power klaws on shoota boyz at adepticon is allowed at that tournament.

Doesn't make it legal. Doesn't make for a better tournament, either. Not sure I could get used to playing adepticon-40k with non-40k maintainer army builder files and be able to play the real game of 40k with everybody else. Oh well, that lot won't be missed.

By the way, I looked at the adepticon FAQ and at the AB files.

I stopped counting when the differences between the AB files and the "rules" [using the term loosely] in the Adepticon FAQ reached one hundred.

Redbeard, you have less than a month to make a dataset for the adepticon ruleset.

One down, ninety-nine [or more] to go.

I don't expect you to actually do this, since it's obvious to me you're playing Orks and want things your way...but color me purple if you do.

KiMonarrez, the validations you are seeing are due to the bug report you filed, and Ghaz had already addressed that - don't go comparing that to something that is working as the maintainers expected. If the Commissars weren't supposed to be on HW platoons they wouldn't be there at all. The bug will be addressed. I've added a comment to your report, but as Ghaz stated just because there's no reply doesn't mean it's being ignored - comments are usually used to ask for more info, or for the maintainer to state when it will be fixed.

Whatever beef you have with the AB software not working properly you'll have to take up with Wolflair, but demanding a refund just because you don't like the way the AB40k files are done isn't going to get you anywhere with them. When you bought the AB software you were not buying into the files too - if you don't like them the way they are, you can download the ABCreator software and edit them yourself to match what you think is right.

And as to the Power Klaw issue, I fully support the maintainer stance, and I myself consider the RaW not allowing the option. Until GW UK/US publishes an official FAQ as a PDF it should remain as it is. The AB40k files need to be able, as fully as possible, to only be used to build rules legal lists - allowing the Klaw on a Shoota nob will only serve to confuse those players who use it and are not aware of the issue. With the current stance at worst a player will have to change his list manually, which is better than having a player turn up to a GW run event and find their list is illegal (which is what would happen with the UK GT, for instance).

Stelek wrote:
I don't think Ghaz (or anyone else) has said that shooty klaws are illegal.

Personally I don't want them to be, because it ruins my planned Ork army.

They may or may not be 100% illegal, but until GW gets off it's ass and says so in a US or UK 'official' FAQ it's not possible for the maintainers to allow it without rewriting the rules.

Stelek wrote:
Why is this relevant? Because it is obvious to me (and probably a whole hell of a lot of other people) that quite a few of the players that attend the adepticon are whining pricks who want to have the power klaw on shooty mobs because it is a very powerful option and if they can't get it are going to kick up a shitstorm about it.

Doesn't change the fact it isn't legal in the rest of the warhammer world, and regardless of what yakface changed the rules to say in the adepticon faq the rulebook isn't somehow "ambigious". It's really quite clear. You can't have a power klaw on a shoota boyz nob.

How does an illegal option get made legal?

GW changes it.

i apologize for pulling two quotes out of context, but it appears to me that you are arguing two seperate, and incompatible avenues here. In my earlier post I discussed how a true rules ambiguity could be resolved, and the response was that to you, the option isn't ambigous and is clearly illegal. If that is the position taken by the maintainers, then, as the OP rather impolititely asserted, they have made a ruling beyond their ken as maintainers. As volunteers, they are welcome to simply state that this is the way they are doing business now, but the response I've been getting from currently active maintainers (which, IIRC stelek is not at the moment) is that they want to avoid confusion and provide a fully legal list to the end user.

Stelek's position, if I am reading it correctly, is that the Shooty Klaws option is clearly illegal, and should not therefore make any appearance in the AB file. If his assertion is true, of course, then he is correct. Since I challenge his assertion, I don't accept his argument, but since the dispute is based on differences in starting points, future debate is probably fruitless.

This leaves the question to Ghaz and the other maintainers that have joined in (welcome to Dakka, btw!): do you agree with Stelek's POV, and if so, how do you respond to the charge that making such a rules decision is inapporpriate. If not, how to answer to my assertion that any confusion on this issue is caused by GW, not AB, and if AB fails to reflect the truly fractured legality of this option, it is less then complete. IMO, it's important for people playing both ways to know that the other way exists and, IMO, has a valid argument.

Wow. A lot of not reading going on.

I had an issue with AB's operability, because the darned thing wouldn't run. THAT is what pissed me off. It's working now, and I'll thank my lucky stars, as AB is an application I really enjoy using... when it's working.

The issue the OP has is something I was unaware of, as I play Dark Angels and haven't found anything remotely similar. However, if I were to find something in the codex that sounded reasonable and legal (as opposed to blatantly illegal), and AB doesn't allow me to use it... yur durn tootin' I'd take issue with it. That is why I "took up the flag" for the OP. Especially after reading that little blurb in the authoring kit.

I take issue with "the few" (the maintainers) imposing their view (that I don't happen to agree with, and apparently others as well) upon the whole.

I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW". That's blatant hypocrisy.

Luckily, the OP had the technical knowhow to FIX the error of ommission, and posted his gripe on Dakka.

The commissar problem I reported was due to finding a bug, and hoping to improve the final product for others. I have exactly ZERO problems building the list ,as is, and printing it, as is (with it's 2 validation errors) and pointing out the error, as is, (if it's brought up) by showing the pertinent rules in the codex. I would have SERIOUS problems if (instead of how it is now) I found that AB wouldn't allow me to attach the commissar to a heavy weapon platoon by design and the AB maintainers refused to fix it. that. I'm taking issue with the mindset, or the policy, which I feel is clearly not aligned with how AB should work (especially noting that little blurb from the development of 3.0).

THAT'S the issue.

Now, I also asked about nobody taking notice of the bug I noted. It seemed that (from reading other bugs) if the error was valid (as it clearly was) the error would be "confirmed". If a few days go by and nothing happens to the post, it gives the impression that nobody is doing anything about it, valid or not. Ghaz noted that the issue was confirmed and he just didn't post. The issue was dropped.

Oh, and "Welcome to Dakka" to the other maintainers.

Don't mind the trolls.

How many times have i said this I am not a Troll. Look get over it Ghaz does have a life outside this forum.

GET BACK IN YOUR HOLE!!!!

Durn trolls.








j/k Beef. You know I love ya, even if you du murdrr the printted Englische.

Agree with KiMonarrez, and also wanted to say that the attitudes of the AB maintainers, while not affiliated with Wolf Lair, reflect poorly on Wolf Lair and their product by way of the discussion in this thread.

Because of this, I will not be purchasing the Army Builder software, and will encourage others in my group to do the same.

What bugs me--and I have been making this point in my last few posts--is not so much the fact that the maintainers have made this decision, but that they're (and I'm sorry if I'm generalising unfairly based on Ghaz) so damned defensive about it. No one is forcing you guys to make the change any more than you're forcing us to use your files. We are free to use or not use your files, and you are free to follow or not follow our requests (and I am of course aware that different users make different and sometimes incompatible requests). Even if you insist on standing firm (and as we've seen, it is not that frustrated users have no recourse--others can alter the files too) there is no need to insult and attack people who are, in essence, trying to help you improve the thing you're trying to create. Yes, they are telling you what constitutes "improvement" as they see it, but that is all anyone can do.

I know you've heard it before, and I know you must be tired of it, but ffs, one would think feedback were an utterly unprecedented concept going by Ghaz's reaction.

For the record, I use army builder and it generally meets my needs (though admittedly I do not play Orks). In fact, I usually go out of my way to recommend Army Builder to my friends. However, I absolutely can not recommend it to my friend that recently started playing orks or to anyone else that primarily plays Orks.

In the group that I play with we've discussed the issue of Nobs with Power klaws and we've decided that the intent was to allow them to have power klaws so we are going to allow it (and this seems to be the shared opinion of the majority of people with the notable exceptions of the UK GT people and apparently the Army Builder Data file maintainers). Because of the arbitrary decision made by the maintainers of the data file Ork players in my area are unable to properly use a product that they are going to have to pay for if they are going to use. Because of this it just isn't a good decision for them to buy army builder. Until GW releases an official FAQ the resolves this issue one way or the other I really don't see why you can't just leave it to the end user as to how he wants to equip his Nobs and how he wants to interpret what is a poorly written entry in the Ork Codex.

To summarize, what I'm saying is that you, the data file maintainers , in making the decision to disallow orks with powerklaws in shoota squads are doing a disservice to both Wolf Lair and to the end users (paying customers) of Army Builder. The arrogant and defensive attitude of the maintainers is also not helping things either.

I would also like to applaud RedBeard for the modified data file, thanks!

I know you've heard it before, and I know you must be tired of it, but ffs, one would think feedback were an utterly unprecedented concept going by Ghaz's reaction.

Disclaimer: I am a disinterested party; I neither play orks nor write AB datafiles.

The tone in the thread began as...assertive, and quickly progressed to arrogant, as directed towards the AB40k team. Constructive feedback is useful, but statements like "Since the maintainers of the ArmyBuilder wh40k4 datafiles seem to be more interested in their ego trip as rules judges than as maintainers of a tool that people find useful" are far more likely to provoke a defensive response from Ghaz et al.

If we wanted to open a dialogue on the philosophy behind the AB40k rules position, there were much better ways to do it. I read the original post as a self-promotional troll, and that's without anything like the (uncompensated) investment of time in the datafiles that the maintainers have.

And yes, once defensive responses started, the thread degenerated, plus Stelek added his own special brand of commentary.



For the AB40k maintainers, and all other dataset authors: thank you very much for the time and effort you've devoted to providing us ungrateful lot with free tools. Given how long it takes to develop even the most simplistic spreadsheet approach to army list automation, I am thrilled to have the benefits of your labor.

tomguycot wrote:To summarize, what I'm saying is that you, the data file maintainers , in making the decision to disallow orks with powerklaws in shoota squads are doing a disservice to both Wolf Lair and to the end users (paying customers) of Army Builder. The arrogant and defensive attitude of the maintainers is also not helping things either.

I would also like to applaud RedBeard for the modified data file, thanks!

The maintainers paid for AB too.

They don't get paid to make the datafiles.

Redbeard used the maintainer datafile and changed one thing.

5 minutes "work" versus the many hours the actual maintainer spent writing that file.

In the end, being ungrateful is expected by the maintainers.

Believing they are using their so-called "power" for evil is also expected.

Blaming the volunteers for doing what they can with what they have to work with instead of yelling at GW for being asshats about immediately fixing their f*cked up rules, is also pretty normal.

Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

Janthkin wrote:The tone in the thread began as...assertive, and quickly progressed to arrogant, as directed towards the AB40k team...

That is correct, on this site. The original discussion started on the AB40k site, but Ghaz's attitude towards people suggesting anything meant that any thread involving this topic got locked there. In order to have any sort of open dialog about changes to the AB40k maintainer's policies, you have to use an external site, as they quash any discussion contrary to their position on their own forums.

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

At least it's nice to know why Ghaz wasn't exactly pleasant to your whining if you started it over there. lol

Stelek wrote:
Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

I'd be where I am when a new codex is release, but before their month of exclusion is over - I'd write my own. It's really not very hard, and it doesn't take that long. You make it sound like they're working overtime on this stuff. It takes two or three hours to write a datafile, especially to the style that the new codexes are laid out in. Maybe longer if you're not too familiar with the interface, but once you get that down, it really doesn't take a lot of time. Three hours every three months when a new codex is released - I've seen people do more 'work' in producing step-by-step painting tutorials.

The thing about work like this is that it only has to be done once. There's no reason for anyone else to release the datafiles that they've worked on as long as the AB40k team is releasing them. Or, at least, there wasn't. Perhaps this sort of dogged refusal to create datafiles that the community is clearly interested in is enough to get a competing datafile set together.

Good luck with that.

Lemme get this straight, Stelek.

3 posts back you complain that the maintainers volunteer their time and effort to do a thankless and demanding job. So demanding and thankless that you ended up quitting.

Then the OP makes a suggestion, and then even does the work FOR THEM, and gets snubbed. Repeatedly.

So... if it's so thankless, you'd think they'd like someone assisting them in making a better product. As opposed to snubbing, belittlement, and oh yeah, implying his work just wasn't good enough (doesn't fit OUR rules).

If it looks, smells and sounds like arrogance.... it probably is.

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

Well yeah, why not? Yak doesn't quash criticism of Dakka policies when they arise. He may not change them, and he may continue issue warnings or bans in response to actual infractions of them, but I do not recall him (or Russ before him) ever declaring nope, that's enough, no more discussion of this because I say so.

Of course, no one is obligated to conform to a similarly noble code. 40ko and Warseer sure don't.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

Well yeah, why not? Yak doesn't quash criticism of Dakka policies when they arise. He may not change them, and he may continue issue warnings or bans in response to actual infractions of them, but I do not recall him (or Russ before him) ever declaring nope, that's enough, no more discussion of this because I say so.

Of course, no one is obligated to conform to a similarly noble code. 40ko and Warseer sure don't.

Heresy!

Reported.

When the discussion ends up being 'you and everything you do sucks because my 0.3% of the gaming crowd DEMAND you change the way you've been doing things for years because we WANT something besides the legal datafiles you gave us' you really think that's going to last more than 5 seconds on anybody's website?

Be serious.

Kimonarrez, redbeard wasn't snubbed. He was told the rules the maintainers operate by. He told them it was legal and he couldn't prove it but dammit he wanted it.

Let's see, the rules are here: http://www.ab40k.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=850

The thread in question is here:
http://www.ab40k.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=796&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Gee, the maintainers sure seem like crazy pitchfork-wielders out to get ya in those two threads.

This datafile doesn't make a better product, it just makes an illegal one.

By the way, when are you going to incorporate the 100+ rules changes Yak made in his FAQ to the datafile?

Until you answer why you only 'fixed' the one inconvenient issue for you personally without incorporating all the others, you will still sound like a bunch of whining asshats to me. Maybe others don't think this is a bunch of bull and can clearly see just how magnanimous redbeard is in fixing just his one issue while leaving all the other 'problems' in the adepticon FAQ out of his datafile.

Remember, it's apparently only 3 hours every 3 months (lol man that's good for a laugh) so get crackin!

Enshrining a principle in the Forum Rules doesn't mean you're not a for holding to that principle.

Stelek wrote:

Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

In the same place I was before Redbeard's modification ...using pen and paper to make Ork army lists. I fail to see how I'd be that much worse off.

This thread is devolving. I've done my best to explain my points, I appreciate the responses. Between the initial OP and some of the responses, the thread got hot in a hurry, and it obscured what for me is the core issue: why was the option to include shooty klaws not included.

Based on the responses of the maintainers, and their responses to IMHO a pretty well reasoned and argued plan to include the option, I think that there was a kernel of truth to the OP's claim: the decision was made less out of a desire to serve the public as well as possible, and more out of some agenda. Now, this is certianly not a sinister or malevolent agenda, but there is, IMO, no solid reason not to listen to the feedback given and include this change in the next batch of updates.

Despite some claims made to the contrary, i think a sizable pluarality (if not majority) of players either play that Klaws are legal by RAW, ambigious but allowed under RAW, don't care about RAW and allow them, or simply haven't read the rules that closely. I doubt it's simply Adepticon attendees and organizers, or a paltry minority who would object to the option being included. Attempts to minimize or trivialize this demographic I think are self defeating: If the minority is that small, simply ignore them! Don't engage and look petty and defensive.

Finally, while the maintainers volunteer their time and services, and frankly don't get the accolades they are due, they are volunteers, not conscripts. Many people devote time and energy to activities that do not pay them, and they do so for many reasons. Because of this, there is often a certain amount of discretion and power that is given to these people. This is expected and understood. Do not use the excuse that they are volunteers to shield them from criticism. They are, I'm assuming, reaping some benefit from the activity that makes them continue. I have tried to be as polite and rational as possible, and I agree that the OP was out of line in his accusations. However, if a person or group of people hold themselves above reproach, are defensive and/or insulting to those that question their decisions and/or motives, and refuse to yeild to requests... then I believe they have moved from benevolent stewards to a feeling of entitlement that no longer puts the overall goal first. I could be wrong, of course, but it's how it looks to me.

Stelek,

Regarding the public's perception about being able to take a powerklaw Nob in a shoota boyz unit, 82% of 141 votes is hardly a tiny minority and it has nothing to do with Adepticon.

It is a vast majority of players that believe (for whatever reason) that powerklaw Nobs in shoota squads are legal and the point of the INAT_FAQ is to run an event that has the smallest amount of squabbles as possible and a ruling that follows what 80% of the players already think does exactly that.


BTW, this isn't a commentary on the AB files, they are free to do whatever they want.

It seems to me that there are 2 "sides" in this thread right now.
Side 1 is the "We want it, so it should be there" side.
Side 2 is the "It's not RAW, so we aren't doing it" side.

Granted, I'm simplifying... but that seems to be accurate.

First off, my thanks to the developers/maintainers who write the files, troubleshoot, etc. It's a near-thankless job. I want you to know that you make my gaming experience INFINITELY more enjoyable. I DO know it AND appreciate it.

Now, I'd like to add a (sort of) third "side" in the thread.
Although I've never posted on the Wolflair forums, I'm one of those people who say, "If it isn't supported by RAW, I don't want it in there." I get miffed when AB allows me to mistakenly do something I shouldn't, because I am NOT 100% on all of the rules. I understand, however, that it's sometimes easier to allow something with a flag than to write hours more code to DISallow it. Again, the maintainers are working on their own time... So, I understand.

I'm not saying that the people who want it there are "wrong," or should shut up or anything like that. I'm simply voicing for those who support it not being in there.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PK SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE NOB.
(Just for the record)
That belief, however, is not supported by RAW. Until it is, I support the datafile as-is.

Eric

Stated far mor eloquently than I would, Polonius. *ahem* Yeah!!! What he said.

KiMonarrez wrote:I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW".

Actually it was probably pointed out here or via another webiste - if you are playing using the DA or the BA codex, there is no stipulation about taking razorbacks with a squad size that the transport itself could not hold. Also for further proof on this, you can take a look at the recent chaos codex where several units have " You may take ~this~ as a dedicated transport" (with squads that have the capability of 20 members) while I believe that it is the Khorne Berserkers specifically mention that you cannot turn a Razorback into a clown car by forbidding a transport if the number of modelx exceeds "x".

shaggai wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW".

Actually it was probably pointed out here or via another webiste - if you are playing using the DA or the BA codex, there is no stipulation about taking razorbacks with a squad size that the transport itself could not hold. Also for further proof on this, you can take a look at the recent chaos codex where several units have " You may take ~this~ as a dedicated transport" (with squads that have the capability of 20 members) while I believe that it is the Khorne Berserkers specifically mention that you cannot turn a Razorback into a clown car by forbidding a transport if the number of modelx exceeds "x".

I know that. Read what I wrote. Specifically the yellow bolded stuff. As in (per their codex) not allowed in Codex: Space Marine, allowed in Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Blood Angels.

I should thank you for bringing that back up again though. Where's the "AB datafiles won't allow anything that's not 100% RAW" on that, eh? If the claim for the Klaw is "not supported" then you had better darn well be implimenting it 100% across all the datafiles, else you're leaving a specific group out in the cold.

I can start digging up codex and compiling the list for you if you like.

Yak, we'll just have to disagree on that one.

I guess I should restate what I think I've already said:

I've seen Phil play and do know he intended for shoota boyz to get PK nobs.

I want shoota boyz to get PK nobs.

The rulebook says different. Until GW gets off their duff and says it's legal or it's not in a official FAQ, how can AB make the PK entry be part of the fileset without doing what yak has done and rewrite the game to their liking?

They've avoided doing that and remained 'neutral' on this subject for years, and GW rarely has had a problem with them as a result (because they don't rewrite the rules).

If you really think you can add a razorback to a SM unit over 6 models and get a validated-as-legal list, well, you're off your cookie because you cannot do so.
The list will print out as illegal. So it's working as intended, and so much for that 'argument'.

MagickalMemories wrote:It seems to me that there are 2 "sides" in this thread right now.
Side 1 is the "We want it, so it should be there" side.
Side 2 is the "It's not RAW, so we aren't doing it" side.

Granted, I'm simplifying... but that seems to be accurate.

that's not really fair. You're simplifying it to "people who play by the rules" and "People who want things their way." I would say the two sides are:
1: people for whom Shooty Klaws are illegal, and don't want it in AB
2: People for whom Shooty Klaws are legal, and so expect it to be in AB

I'm glad you posted, because it allows me to ask this question: As a user who depends on AB for rules validation, would it be a problem for a an option, in the same vein as Special Characters, to be clicked to allow Klaws? What if any roster that used this option included a warning?

MM hits it on the head.

Seriously, I have stated it over and over again. This is simply put a RAW issue. RAW says no unless you choose to ignore the wording of the rule. As such it is a RAW issue. No matter how you apply logic to the case, RAW says you cannot. This is NOT to say in anyway that RAI shouldn't allow PowerKlaws, but the Maintains stick to a strict RAW standpoint as that is what GW has stated over and over recently that they stick to.

As for the original post on the Maintainer site, I personally sent PMs to the OP there explaining the ruling and advising I would follow-up (which I did). He chose to not respond and instead take his derogatory statements to another website to air his grievances. His Original Post stayed on the Maintainer site until the content clearly devolved into a flame way in which I deleted the posts due to language and content. In hindsight I wish I hadn't so everyone here could see the flame based statements he originally made.

Here he has stated his efforts are simply a few hours work every few months. That of course assumes he starts with the basis the current and past maintainers have provided in base rule sets and existing files. It’s good that he has stated it’s so easy for him to complete his work, and it’s definitely his freedom to do so, but the maintainer site and the main 40k datafiles will remain using a RAW mindset. Again, this isn't a datafile issue, it’s a rules issue and should be brought to GW to fix.

Stelek wrote:

If you really think you can add a razorback to a SM unit over 6 models and get a validated-as-legal list, well, you're off your cookie because you cannot do so.
The list will print out as illegal. So it's working as intended, and so much for that 'argument'.

I can have the option (though it's wrong) and print it out, validation errors and all. That's the point. That's all he wants. You already have datafiles that allow things that aren't 100% RAW. He's just lookin' for some of the same lovin'.

Yeah, and you can do that in the datafiles NOW Ki.

Add a boyz nob to a slugga squad.

Give him a klaw.

Click off the sluggas.

Click on the shootas.

Same points, gives a validation error, and you can print it.

What, no one tried to do this before starting this bitchfest?

Greeeeeeeeeeeat.

KiMonarrez wrote:You already don't have datafiles that allow things that aren't 100% RAW.

Interesting point of view.

If you mean the optional stuff, yes...and it prints out as not legal since it isn't 100% RAW.

So what's the point? That you really don't 'get it'? I think I understand that now.

KiMonarrez wrote:

Stelek wrote:

If you really think you can add a razorback to a SM unit over 6 models and get a validated-as-legal list, well, you're off your cookie because you cannot do so.
The list will print out as illegal. So it's working as intended, and so much for that 'argument'.

I can have the option (though it's wrong) and print it out, validation errors and all. That's the point. That's all he wants. You already don't have datafiles that allow things that aren't 100% RAW. He's just lookin' for some of the same lovin'.

Again, the warning or error isnt a 'you might have an issue' its a YOU HAVE AN ISSUE. It is assumed that you will FIX the issue and if you do not it gets listed on the output. Its just not always possible to fully disallow every silly little thing when its not avaaialbel. The design of AB doesn't allow this very easily and as such we have to code many things on a REACTIVE process instead of a PROACTIVE process. This goes back to one of my previous posts. All because the rror is there when you do something wrong and can print the wrong information doesn't make it a user choice instance. The problem with Klaws are they are disallowed by RAW. You cannot in any way successfully add a Klaw to the Nob without breaking the rule at some point if you have a shooty mob.

Try creating a program that follows the rules as outlines. It will nto work. If you wouldlike more examples(from a programming example) I would be happy to provide later tonight.

jlong05 wrote:MM hits it on the head.

Seriously, I have stated it over and over again. This is simply put a RAW issue. RAW says no unless you choose to ignore the wording of the rule. As such it is a RAW issue. No matter how you apply logic to the case, RAW says you cannot. This is NOT to say in anyway that RAI shouldn't allow PowerKlaws, but the Maintains stick to a strict RAW standpoint as that is what GW has stated over and over recently that they stick to.

And myself and others have repeatedly said that your interpretation is incorrect. The Klaws are not clearly illegal. The RAW is ambigous, and to state otherwise is to do what Stelek repeatedly says AB cannot do: change the rules.

This is the crux of much of the animosity: many, many people disagree with your assertion that the RAW is clear.

I tried to do it in the most logical fashion.

I added a boyz squad.

I clicked off choppa&slugga
I clicked on shootas
I added a nob

I can't add a klaw.

I tried it your way and it works. Guess it's the *shhhh* SOOOOOOPER SECRET method.

If it can be made to work the other way too, I'd shut up.

KiMonarrez wrote:I tried to do it in the most logical fashion.

I added a boyz squad.

I clicked off choppa&slugga
I clicked on shootas
I added a nob

I can't add a klaw.

I tried it your way and it works. Guess it's a sooper secret method.

If it can be made to work the other way too, I'd shut up.

to be fair, the super secret method is the method by which the RAW woudl allow the Klaw. the rules are pretty clear that a Nob must exchange his choppa for a klaw, but it does not say what order to do things in. The method Stelek pointed out is the way it has to be taken.

Edit: I tried it, and it works. Since it does pretty much what I'd like it to (allow the option with a warning), then I'm happy. I wish I or somebody else had discovered this 25 posts ago.

Were I an orks player, and now knew the *shhhhhhh* Soooooooper secret method, I'd be happy with it.

I'll shut up as the only thing that concerned me is available.


And now, by 4 year old son wants to type something.

0oih5`l5r utjr5oi45y6tjr45i4reyurdh7w26y1q2t79683etwqc7534er@fasfdsgf

the next Shakespeare. I know.

Polonius, the RAW isn't clear but the way the 40k maintainers have done things for years IS.

Come down on the 'strictest' not the 'loosest'.

'Strictest' makes for the most legal army lists.

'Loosest' does not.

Stelek that's fair, if that's the policy. I guess I never really encountered it before, but that's probably because there's never been a RAW issue regarding army comp before, with the possible exception of the six dreadnought list.

Since the product does what I asked it to, I'm no longer concerned. My only comment for the future would be to replicate what the mainainers did here: make the option possible, simply illegal. If you read my posts, that's all I've ever asked for. I think there can be some slop between what AB says is legal, and what AB allows as possible. After all, I can build a list without an HQ or 2 Troops with AB. It's not legal, but it's possible.

Once again, Polonius says it FAR more eloquently. What he said.

jlong05 wrote:
As for the original post on the Maintainer site, I personally sent PMs to the OP there explaining the ruling and advising I would follow-up (which I did). He chose to not respond and instead take his derogatory statements to another website to air his grievances. His Original Post stayed on the Maintainer site until the content clearly devolved into a flame way in which I deleted the posts due to language and content. In hindsight I wish I hadn't so everyone here could see the flame based statements he originally made.

I never posted on the thread on the maintainer website, as I saw from how other threads were being locked that it was a waste of time. You never sent me a PM either. You must be confusing me with someone else who feels that the datafiles you are providing don't meet their needs.

Again, this isn't a datafile issue, it’s a rules issue and should be brought to GW to fix.

Of course it is a datafile issue. You are not, to the best of my knowledge, employed by GW. Your collective decision to follow the most conservative interpretation of the rules yields a tool that is less useful than it could be. You gain nothing by sticking with this path, as the number of bugs in the datafiles consistently yield situations where AB allows something that a codex doesn't. AB is not considered a viable authority in any rules discussion that I've ever seen. You can claim "100% legal lists" but in the three years I've used AB, it's never once been 100% legal, and each release fixes some bugs but introduces new ones as well. Since the datafiles cannot be depended on to be 100% correct, why not go with liberal interpretations of the rules so that the tool is useful to the most gamers. Those who want to follow more conservative approaches can restrict themselves.

I'm not trying to berate you for the bugs, either. I develop software for a living, and I know that bugs happen. It's not my aim here to criticise the existence of bugs in the datafiles, but rather to point out that because bugs do exist, and have existed in every single datafile I've used, you're already failing on the 100% legal point.

The crux of the issue though is that the OP (which knew this method was available) had issue with it being flagged 'as an error'. As his view is it is not he changed it and said everyone working on the files is wrong and have giant egos, blah blah blah. I never brought up that you 'could' do as you wanted as I assumed the issue was the same in that it was being flagged as an error as by RAW it is. Here is the logic process I promised.

A = Boyz Mob with Option C(Slugga/choppa)
B = Nob
D = Option for Shootas
E = Option for Klaw

The specific rules state:

Options: Entire Mob(A) may replace sluggas and choppas for shootas.
ie: A(C) - C + D = A(D)
One Boy may be upgraded to a Nob(B)
ie: A(D) - Boy(sub A item) = A(D) + B(D) Nob inherits default weapons at time of upgrade.
Nob may replace his choppa(C) with Klaw(E)
ie: A(D) B(D) ... Wait No choppa(C) available. = No Klaw(E).

Lets try the other method process. (ie. add nob and klaw and then convert)
One Boy may be upgraded to a Nob(B)
ie: A(C) - Boy(sub A item) = A(C) + B(C) Nob inherits default weapons at time of upgrade.
Nob may replace his choppa(C) with Klaw(E)
ie: A(C) B(C) - B(C item) = A(C) B(E)
Options: Entire Mob(A)(B) may replace sluggas and choppas for shootas. You must include the Nob as he is part of the Boys MOB now.
ie: A(C) B(E) - C ... Wait the entire MOB doesn't have a choppa(C) = No shoota(D).

This is the issue with the RAW. From a strict computer step by step process you cannot get a Klaw legally. Now, again, I agree that the RAI says you should, but RAW says you cannot.

Please someone dispute this with a logical FLOW that shows my error and is accurate without breaking the legal process and I will happily jump ship and argue to the Klaws. But as a programmer, I just cannot find it.

Stelek wrote::You can complain all you want, and while Ghaz isn't exactly Mr. Personality until you are willing to put in the hundreds of hours a month the many people at that site do to create the product, you really should be happy you have a working product.

That's just it. As the files currently stand, it isn't a working product. It's broken.

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
As for the original post on the Maintainer site, I personally sent PMs to the OP there explaining the ruling and advising I would follow-up (which I did). He chose to not respond and instead take his derogatory statements to another website to air his grievances. His Original Post stayed on the Maintainer site until the content clearly devolved into a flame way in which I deleted the posts due to language and content. In hindsight I wish I hadn't so everyone here could see the flame based statements he originally made.

I never posted on the thread on the maintainer website, as I saw from how other threads were being locked that it was a waste of time. You never sent me a PM either. You must be confusing me with someone else who feels that the datafiles you are providing don't meet their needs.

My mistake, as your comments almost matched exactly the posts on the maintainer site, I incorrectly assumed you posted there also. I retract my statement stating you are he also.

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
Again, this isn't a datafile issue, it’s a rules issue and should be brought to GW to fix.

Of course it is a datafile issue. You are not, to the best of my knowledge, employed by GW. Your collective decision to follow the most conservative interpretation of the rules yields a tool that is less useful than it could be. You gain nothing by sticking with this path, as the number of bugs in the datafiles consistently yield situations where AB allows something that a codex doesn't. AB is not considered a viable authority in any rules discussion that I've ever seen. You can claim "100% legal lists" but in the three years I've used AB, it's never once been 100% legal, and each release fixes some bugs but introduces new ones as well. Since the datafiles cannot be depended on to be 100% correct, why not go with liberal interpretations of the rules so that the tool is useful to the most gamers. Those who want to follow more conservative approaches can restrict themselves.

I'm not trying to berate you for the bugs, either. I develop software for a living, and I know that bugs happen. It's not my aim here to criticise the existence of bugs in the datafiles, but rather to point out that because bugs do exist, and have existed in every single datafile I've used, you're already failing on the 100% legal point.

The reason I do not agree with the liberal approach is within your very argument. The AIM of the datafiles is to provide a 100% legal list. You are correct that bugs exist, but they are fixed periodically. I disagree with an assessment that NO lists are EVER 100% legal. I am pretty certain that multiple armies have bug free lists, or if bugs are there they are not being identified and stated to the maintainers to be fixed. As an example, I am unaware of any bugs within the Necron datafile that are not clearly marked as Scarabs . All Joking aside, I honestly have no bugs there that have been identified, so lists made with that army are 100% accurate and legal. If not and there is a bug, it has not been identified and listed for me to fix. This is also the same with other armies as well. To complain that the files are full of bugs is honestly an incorrect statement as it is NOT full of bugs. Bugs exist and when found and we are informed of them and they have been confirmed we fix them(generally within a few days to a week of being notified).

If you know of other existing bugs, please, please, please report them so we can fix the files so everyone can benefit.

jlong05 wrote:Seriously, I have stated it over and over again. This is simply put a RAW issue. RAW says no unless you choose to ignore the wording of the rule.

This is a laughable statement. The only possible way to correctly read the rules is to allow powerklaws on every nob, since the order of the application of the rules is _never_ specified. But, since Ghaz is involved with the official files, it's to be expected that the files will break the rules on a regular basis.

Buoyancy wrote:

jlong05 wrote:Seriously, I have stated it over and over again. This is simply put a RAW issue. RAW says no unless you choose to ignore the wording of the rule.

This is a laughable statement. The only possible way to correctly read the rules is to allow powerklaws on every nob, since the order of the application of the rules is _never_ specified. But, since Ghaz is involved with the official files, it's to be expected that the files will break the rules on a regular basis.

Please see my post(4 posts up) which shows the flow. If you are aware of a flow matrix that allows Klaws without ignoring another rule then show it logically.

jlong05 wrote:Please see my post(4 posts up) which shows the flow. If you are aware of a flow matrix that allows Klaws without ignoring another rule then show it logically.

If the nob has a powerklaw, then he has no slugga+choppa to exchange, and thus isn't affected with the rest of the mob. The way it actually works, for anybody who can handle the basic logical concept that A=>B does not mean that B=>A is:

One Boy may be upgraded to a Nob(B)
ie: A(C) - Boy(sub A item) = A(C) + B(C) Nob inherits default weapons at time of upgrade.
Nob may replace his choppa(C) with Klaw(E)
ie: A(C) B(C) - B(C item) = A(C) B(E)
Options: Entire Mob(A)(B) may replace sluggas and choppas for shootas. There is no requirement that Entire Mob(A)(B) has sluggas and choppas for this to succeed, so every Slugga and Choppa is replaced by a Shoota.

Buoyancy wrote:Options: Entire Mob(A)(B) may replace sluggas and choppas for shootas. There is no requirement that Entire Mob(A)(B) has sluggas and choppas for this to succeed, so every Slugga and Choppa is replaced by a Shoota.

But there is. The rules says the ENTIRE mob replaces their Sluggas/Choppas. The Nob is part of the Mob and doesn't have the Choppa to exchange. By your logic, one could argue that they can 'mix' mobs with shoota boys and slugga/choppa boys. This is why it says the ENTIRE mob.

Caps indicated for emphasis(and are mine)

Stelek wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:You already don't have datafiles that allow things that aren't 100% RAW.

Interesting point of view.

If you mean the optional stuff, yes...and it prints out as not legal since it isn't 100% RAW.

So what's the point? That you really don't 'get it'? I think I understand that now.

Honestly it seems more evident that you don't 'get it'. Ki's point is simply that, because AB already incorporates the capacity to flag options as illegal, it should be very simple to do something similar with the shoota mob PK. Such an argument is entirely valid as it supposes that all instances of potential illegality are similar, and therefore equivalent to a reasonably objective observer. Ki is simply questioning what it is about the shoota PK which makes it any different from his cited examples; thereby legitimating the omission of the option from the file. All you've done in attempting to refute this point is state that you don't agree with it and thus deem it worthy of aggressive belittlement.

Glad SOMEONE was getting it.






Though, *looks left* *looks right*


"Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. There's a Sooooooper secret way to do it."

Buoyancy is correct. The rule is that the entire Mob may exchange their Sluggas and Choppas for Shootas, not that they must. If any model, such as the Nob, does not have both a Slugga and a Choppa to exchange, then it does not meet the conditions for exchanging those weapons for a Shoota.

So yeah, if you're not representing the modality with the proper notation of course you're going to compute the wrong answer.

Nurglitch wrote:Buoyancy is correct. The rule is that the entire Mob may exchange their Sluggas and Choppas for Shootas, not that they must. If any model, such as the Nob, does not have both a Slugga and a Choppa to exchange, then it does not meet the conditions for exchanging those weapons for a Shoota.

So yeah, if you're not representing the modality with the proper notation of course you're going to compute the wrong answer.

So, your standpoint is that as the rule states the ENTIRE mob may replace their sluggas and choppas for shootas, but the rule does not say the ENTIRE mob MUST replace... then isn't is also valid by your reasoning that a mixed mob is also legal? The problem is that the issue is with the first part of the rule (ENTIRE MOB) so the secondary part is inherent to that (MAY replace...) There is no reason to indicate the ENTIRE MOB MUST, as they are NOT required to replace unless you want to switch the weapons, but if you do want Shootas, then the ENTIRE mob MUST follow suit. As the Nob(which is part of the mob) doesn't have the appropriate weapons then the ENTIRE mob cannot exchange their choppas and sluggas as the ENTIRE mob doesn't have them. Only the REST do. The rule indicates the ENTIRE mob, not the REST of the mob.

The issue that you appear to be clinging to is the wording of 'may replace' as in it is each individual models choice, but that is not the case. It the choice of the player but its an ALL or nothing due to the prior point of ENTIRE Mob.

So your logic flow is flawed.

When following a ruled logic flow, one must strictly adhere ALL rules that are identified, not just the parts one wants to use.

Again, please someone; programmatically identify a proper logic flow that does not break any of the rules or requirements without taking things out of context or assuming the understanding of the rules designers. Unfortunately, I have been over this specific rule more times than I like to count, and I still cannot find a way it’s valid.

jlong05 wrote:
The reason I do not agree with the liberal approach is within your very argument. The AIM of the datafiles is to provide a 100% legal list.

You have set a goal that, to date, you have failed to achieve. Again, I'm not trying to say that there are a lot of bugs, or even that every datafile has bugs. I am stating the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, in the three+ years that I've been using this datafile set, there has never been a set of datafiles that was able to produce 100% correct lists, due to the bugs in the datafiles.

Given that the goal you have set is not being met, maybe it is time to re-evaluate the goal. Rather than strive for something you cannot do, aim to create the most useful set of datafiles.

I disagree with an assessment that NO lists are EVER 100% legal. I am pretty certain that multiple armies have bug free lists

I didn't say that no lists were 100% legal. You can make a lot of 100% legal lists with the current datasets, even in some of the buggy datafiles, as many of the bugs can simply be worked around by users who have read their codexes. I make legal lists all the time. My assertion was not that you cannot make legal lists, it was that it is possible, and has been possible in every set of datafiles I've used to date, to make illegal lists that are not flagged as such. Since the ability to create an illegal list doesn't actually impact the usefulness of the tool as long as all legal options are supported, these bugs are much less likely to be reported.

As for the powerklaw thing, as seen in this thread, even RAW, it's a debatable case. It's not a matter of RAW vs RAI, it's a matter of RAW vs RAW with different ways of applying the logic from the poorly worded rule.

jlong05 wrote:

The issue that you appear to be clinging to is the wording of 'may replace' as in it is each individual models choice, but that is not the case. It the choice of the player but its an ALL or nothing due to the prior point of ENTIRE Mob.

May vs must is not the correct issue here. The real question is what it means to say "the entire mob may replace X with Y"

If I have a group of ten people, five of whom have apples and five of whom have oranges, and I say that the entire group may (or must) replace their apple with a banana, what is the result? Is it that no one does anything because the entire group doesn't have apples, or is it that I end up with a group with five people with oranges and five people with bananas?

The nob buys himself a powerklaw. He no longer has a slugga and choppa.
The mob all exchange their slugga and choppa for shootas. Everyone who has a slugga&choppa makes the trade. Anyone who doesn't have it, doesn't. But that doesn't stop the exchange. There is nothing that says, "If the entire mob has sluggas and choppas, they may exchange..."

That's the logic. It's the application of the concept that I can tell an entire group to trade their apples for bananas and the fact that some of the group have oranges doesn't stop them from making the exchange.

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
The reason I do not agree with the liberal approach is within your very argument. The AIM of the datafiles is to provide a 100% legal list.

You have set a goal that, to date, you have failed to achieve. Again, I'm not trying to say that there are a lot of bugs, or even that every datafile has bugs. I am stating the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, in the three+ years that I've been using this datafile set, there has never been a set of datafiles that was able to produce 100% correct lists, due to the bugs in the datafiles.

Given that the goal you have set is not being met, maybe it is time to re-evaluate the goal. Rather than strive for something you cannot do, aim to create the most useful set of datafiles.

So your view of a process is, that if you fail to achive 100% correctness in a specified frame of time, one should give up???? This just doesn't make sense to me. It's odd that you keep indicating errors that you have found that are still not flagged correctly, but you did not send those in as I have suggested. I appologize, but I cannot accept the conclusion that we should give up because bugs are found. If that was the case, every application, program and computer system developer should just quit now as bugs are part of the business.

I commend you on yoru ability to edit the files we created to resolve your personal issue with the lists, but that still didn't resolve every issue that is ambigious in the rules as has been indicated. It only fixed the one you were concerned with. The effort needed to allow every possible ambigious rule would eliminate the ability for timely updates and honest bug finding as everyone at that point argues that their 'logic' is valid wanting the additional options. This is why we have not continued with that development effort. If you choose to continue your personal subset of our datafiles, that is your choice, For those who wish to have our version , they can continue to get them from our website and the AB tool itself. We will continue to strive for 100% RAW support.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 01:19:35

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:

The issue that you appear to be clinging to is the wording of 'may replace' as in it is each individual models choice, but that is not the case. It the choice of the player but its an ALL or nothing due to the prior point of ENTIRE Mob.

May vs must is not the correct issue here. The real question is what it means to say "the entire mob may replace X with Y"

If I have a group of ten people, five of whom have apples and five of whom have oranges, and I say that the entire group may (or must) replace their apple with a banana, what is the result? Is it that no one does anything because the entire group doesn't have apples, or is it that I end up with a group with five people with oranges and five people with bananas?

The nob buys himself a powerklaw. He no longer has a slugga and choppa.
The mob all exchange their slugga and choppa for shootas. Everyone who has a slugga&choppa makes the trade. Anyone who doesn't have it, doesn't. But that doesn't stop the exchange. There is nothing that says, "If the entire mob has sluggas and choppas, they may exchange..."

That's the logic. It's the application of the concept that I can tell an entire group to trade their apples for bananas and the fact that some of the group have oranges doesn't stop them from making the exchange.

But your not applying strict logic then. You are applying loose logic. The assumption is that part of the group doesn't have to make the exchange because they don't have the proper items. By applying strict logic you have to do it this way: Imagine a couple of children(Easy for me cause I can use my kids).

I give my daughter an apple.
I give my son an orange.

I then tell them they can trade(they didn't understand the word exchange :( ) their apples for a banana. My Daughter then says cool, but my son immediatly starts to cry because he doesn't have an apple to trade with. Children are great for strict logic because this is what they see. Black and White. Adults however prefer to see Grey in which you see it is obvious to you that the entire mob doesn't HAVE to trade as onlythose with the proper equipment can trade. Those without the equipment would be ignored.

In my family's case, Poor Cyrus(My Son) :(

Reply by: stonefox - click to view full reply 

844

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 01:33:51

Post by: stonefox

OT, but I didn't think it warranted a new thread. I'm curious.

Hey Ghaz or anyone else volunteering their time to write AB files (thanks ), I was wondering what made you guys go to v3.x instead of stick with 2. Considering the fact that AB wouldn't be used at all without your guys' writing, why didn't you guys just stick with 2.x, so you wouldn't have to buy a copy?

I have 2 and tried 3 but didn't think things changed enough to warrant a new purchase. I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to modify a list since I had to do a major rehaul when Tau Empires came out.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 01:44:16

Post by: jlong05

stonefox wrote:OT, but I didn't think it warranted a new thread. I'm curious.

Hey Ghaz or anyone else volunteering their time to write AB files (thanks ), I was wondering what made you guys go to v3.x instead of stick with 2. Considering the fact that AB wouldn't be used at all without your guys' writing, why didn't you guys just stick with 2.x, so you wouldn't have to buy a copy?

I have 2 and tried 3 but didn't think things changed enough to warrant a new purchase. I know how much of a pain in the ass it is to modify a list since I had to do a major rehaul when Tau Empires came out.

For me its simple. I wanted to support the company that created the software. The 2.x version is old, the files written for it are cumbersome and a pain to support, the way they were developed(due to the 2.x architecture) cause everythign to be slow and crash from time to time, and honestly, no one I knew personally with a copy actually bought it as the license didn't manage properly and allowed for piracy. I know this is a generalization, but I view most everyone that refuses to upgrade as a pirate as I do not understand the reason why you wouldn't want the newer version.

That's just me, and I know not everyone are software pirates, but you asked why and I wanted to answer.

BTW, All my friends have upgraded as well as they see the benefits of the newer version.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 02:42:26

Post by: Nurglitch

jlong05 wrote:So, your standpoint is that as the rule states the ENTIRE mob may replace their sluggas and choppas for shootas, but the rule does not say the ENTIRE mob MUST replace... then isn't is also valid by your reasoning that a mixed mob is also legal?

That is incorrect. I'm pointing out that the rule states that the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shoota. That means the only valid conclusion by classical first order predicate logic is if any models in the mob with sluggas and choppas replace those weapons with a shoota, then all models in the mob with sluggas and choppas must replace those weapons with a shoota.

jlong05 wrote:The problem is that the issue is with the first part of the rule (ENTIRE MOB) so the secondary part is inherent to that (MAY replace...) There is no reason to indicate the ENTIRE MOB MUST, as they are NOT required to replace unless you want to switch the weapons, but if you do want Shootas, then the ENTIRE mob MUST follow suit. As the Nob(which is part of the mob) doesn't have the appropriate weapons then the ENTIRE mob cannot exchange their choppas and sluggas as the ENTIRE mob doesn't have them. Only the REST do. The rule indicates the ENTIRE mob, not the REST of the mob.

That is incorrect. The universal quantity referred to by "The entire mob" is all the members of the mob with sluggas and choppa. We know this to be true because having both sluggas and choppas are necessary conditions for the exchange. They can only make the exchange if they have sluggas and choppas. You could say that the scope of "The entire mob" is qualified by the presence of those two conditions.

jlong05 wrote:The issue that you appear to be clinging to is the wording of 'may replace' as in it is each individual models choice, but that is not the case. It the choice of the player but its an ALL or nothing due to the prior point of ENTIRE Mob.

If I appear to be doing that, then I should clarify what I am doing. The term 'may' is useful when extracting logical information from its expression in English because it is often used to indicate a modality, either a necessity or a contingency, and usually a conditional relation between the two. Hence the player may or may not choose the option, but must apply the option to every model meeting the conditions.

jlong05 wrote:So your logic flow is flawed.

No, my reasoning is sound.

jlong05 wrote:When following a ruled logic flow, one must strictly adhere ALL rules that are identified, not just the parts one wants to use.

I agree. Furthermore in extracting logical information from statements expressed in English one must be careful to accurately preserve all of the rules that are expressed.

jlong05 wrote:Again, please someone; programmatically identify a proper logic flow that does not break any of the rules or requirements without taking things out of context or assuming the understanding of the rules designers. Unfortunately, I have been over this specific rule more times than I like to count, and I still cannot find a way it’s valid.

Sure. It's a simple matter of remembering that [edit]universal quantification is narrowed by the conjunction of sets (the set of models in the entire mob, the set of models with sluggas, the set of models with choppas)[/edit] . Hence "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" means [edit]"When this option is chosen, if any models in the mob have both a slugga and a choppa, then they lose the slugga and choppa and gain a shoota"[/edit].

The phrase "all models in the mob" is identical to "the entire mob", and both are qualified by the properties of having a slugga and having a choppa. The use of the construct "replace...with..." indicates that what is being replaced is a condition for replacement. But "may" is the keyword here because it indicates a contingency for the entire unit, and the conditional for that contingency (if slugga and choppa, then shoota).

[Edit: Oops, fixed that]

Reply by: stonefox - click to view full reply 

844

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 02:45:11

Post by: stonefox

I did share a license with a friend because it let you put it on two computers. A quick google does show that the 2.x files can be easily pirated. I still don't agree with the whole "must update license every other year" requirement which is why I didn't want to support the company after my first purchase.

Anyway, aside from that I happened to think that a couple hours working on a tau empires list was better than shelling out $20 (which is equal to any videogame a couple months old). So is the 3.x software easy to modify? I might buy it and just update my own files if so, since 2.x was a pain to modify.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 03:27:03

Post by: Redbeard

jlong05 wrote:
But your not applying strict logic then. You are applying loose logic.

Ok, I've got a MS in computer science and over 10 years of development experience and I've never heard of "loose" vs "strict" logic.

I think you're using 'loose' logic, in that you're infering a requirement when a requirement doesn't exit. There is no requirement that the entire mob has to have a slugga and choppa, only that all the members of the squad who have them must trade them as a whole set.

Think about it iteratively. Go through the set of members of the mob. If they have a slugga&choppa, replace it with a shoota.

How is this loose logic? It's a clearly defined method for making the replacement.

The assumption is that part of the group doesn't have to make the exchange because they don't have the proper items. By applying strict logic you have to do it this way: Imagine a couple of children(Easy for me cause I can use my kids).

I give my daughter an apple.
I give my son an orange.

I then tell them they can trade(they didn't understand the word exchange :( ) their apples for a banana. My Daughter then says cool, but my son immediatly starts to cry because he doesn't have an apple to trade with.

Exactly. He's not crying because the logic is faulty, he's crying because he got stiffed with the orange. The logic is just fine. All children may exchange their apple for a banana - nothing wrong with that. It might disappoint someone who doesn't have an apple, but that's not logic, that's emotion.

If you said, all children must exchange their apple for a banana, and, forgetting the kids emotional responses for a second, your daughter complies, would you believe the condition to have been met? I would.

Children are great for strict logic because this is what they see.

Hahahahaha. Ok, you lost me there. Children are awful for logic because they're too emotionally vested in their own interests. Your son (in the fictional example) wasn't upset by faulty logic, he was upset that he didn't have the opportunity to get a banana.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 03:43:27

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:If you said, all children must exchange their apple for a banana, and, forgetting the kids emotional responses for a second, your daughter complies, would you believe the condition to have been met? I would.

I would not, as ALL children have not exchanged Apples for Bananas, Only 1 of the 2 have. All apples have been exchanged, but that is not what the Rule required.

I guess this is where I disagree with the way the rule is being read by some members of the gaming community. I read it that ALL members of the MOB must exchange as Choppa and slugga to allow ALL members of the MOB to get Shootas. I understand the distinction you are indicating, but do not see how it gets applied to this ruleset. I see the rule as ALL have to change and as the Nob is part of ALL but cannot chnage then none can. To be honest, I think this is the distinction for the UK GT ruling, but that isn't a valid FAQ for us either, it is simply an example of how the rule is being applied in GW events.

In anycase, the method that is being asked for is available given a specifed process to select, but it does flag as incorrect. If this is acceptbale for the gaming community then great. It has been my experience though that it is simply a matter of time before people start complaining that we incorrectly flag it as invalid.

Oh well.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 04:12:45

Post by: Nurglitch

So, because you don't understand how you are misreading the rule. I think it might help if you explain your exegesis of this rule:

How are you reading "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" such that it means that the exchange may only be made if every Ork in the mob can make the exchange?

I suggest that if you look at how the scope of "The entire mob" is restricted by the expression "may replace...with..." you will see why the possession of sluggas and choppas restricts that scope to mean the same as "Any model in the mob equipped with sluggas and choppas."

The expression "may replace...with..." makes the replacement (shootas) contingent upon more conditions (having both a choppa and a slugga) than simply being a model in the mob. If it was unrestricted, it would be like the big shoota or rokkit launcha option, which allows the option to be chosen regardless of what other options might be taken and only contingent upon a membership relation.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 04:23:22

Post by: jlong05

Nurglitch wrote:So basically because you don't understand how you are misreading the rule. I think it might help if you explain your exegesis of this rule:

How are you reading "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" such that it means that the exchange may only be made if every Ork in the mob can make the exchange?

I suggest that if you look at how the scope of "The entire mob" is restricted by the expression "may replace...with..." you will see why the possession of sluggas and choppas restricts that scope to mean the same as "Any model in the mob equipped with sluggas and chopppas.

Again, I see the emphasis on the Entire Mob as the rule and the may replace as the option. So the requirement for the Mob to change weapons is a choice (ie may replace), the if the choice is made then the requirement is that the whole units makes the same choice (ie Entire Mob).

Again, It's an ambiguous rule in one of another poorly written GW game books. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that it exists, what should be the focus now (as it should have been then) is instead of everyone screaming and yelling and pointing fingers and calling names, everyone should be contacting the provider of the game screaming and yelling about the poorly supported rules and demanding a fix is made that can be used in all games. Calling the guys on the customer support line does no good as they have no standing on their decisions, but demanding a FAQ is created to use as support for future tournaments and such would. The problem is that every local gaming community has decided that it is way easier for them to create their own FAQ than to demand a better product to begin with. If everyone started boycotting GW sanctioned events due to inconsistent rules and unclear FAQ updates, GW would be forced to make updates that resolved issues, or face losses in sales at said events.

Honestly, this discussion has gone way beyond the OP needs. The OP indicating a function was prevented from the AB files, which isn't given a certain flow. This is due to programming needs and as such cannot be helped. If that suffices for the needs of the public then great, but continuing to beat this dead horse will get no further with me as without a step by step flow, I cannot follow your line of view. Sorry and thanks for the discussion.

Reply by: MagickalMemories - click to view full reply 

3197

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:00:05

Post by: MagickalMemories

Polonius wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:It seems to me that there are 2 "sides" in this thread right now.
Side 1 is the "We want it, so it should be there" side.
Side 2 is the "It's not RAW, so we aren't doing it" side.

Granted, I'm simplifying... but that seems to be accurate.

that's not really fair. You're simplifying it to "people who play by the rules" and "People who want things their way." I would say the two sides are:
1: people for whom Shooty Klaws are illegal, and don't want it in AB
2: People for whom Shooty Klaws are legal, and so expect it to be in AB

I'm glad you posted, because it allows me to ask this question: As a user who depends on AB for rules validation, would it be a problem for a an option, in the same vein as Special Characters, to be clicked to allow Klaws? What if any roster that used this option included a warning?

Well, the wording of, "people who play by the rules" and "People who want things their way," isn't how I'd choose to put it, but I find it closer than your definition of the sides. As much as I don't like it, I find the "NO PK" group to be playing by RAW (even if that is not how I would play them within my local group).

That being said, on to your question.

I have to start out be saying that I don't COUNT on AB for rules validation, as much as I expect it to keep me from making mistakes if I forget something...
...I guess that, if you use "rules validation" in a more general way, and not to mean I expect it to know the rules so I don't have to, it COULD be appropriate...
I honestly find the suggestion to be a PITA. It will be hard for the programmers (who we all know are on their spare time while working on it), and I don't want to have to click a special button.
I'd rather it NOT be in there at all until the FAQ comes out, TBH.

I'd rather just leave the appropriate amount of points off of my list & pencil it in.

Eric

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:11:14

Post by: Nurglitch

Here's the thing though, it's not ambiguous. A quick review of that option's grammar reveals it to be clear and unambiguous. The subject of a sentence only performs the verb (exercises the option of replacement) in a contingency: when there is something to replace.

In terms of logical information this means that the quantity "entire" quantifies over the conjunction of both "mob" and "their sluggas and choppas".

If I say: "Everyone may replace their apple and orange with a banana" I am using English to permit everyone with an apple and an orange to replace them with a banana.

Likewise where Codex: Orks says: "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" it is using English to permit every member of an Ork Boyz unit with a slugga and a choppa to replace them with a shoota.

Reply by: MagickalMemories - click to view full reply 

3197

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:13:30

Post by: MagickalMemories

Redbeard wrote:As for the powerklaw thing, as seen in this thread, even RAW, it's a debatable case. It's not a matter of RAW vs RAI, it's a matter of RAW vs RAW with different ways of applying the logic from the poorly worded rule.

I agree that it is a matter of applying logic in different ways.
The problem, however, is that WITH PK is more powerful that WITHOUT PK, and GW's rulings are that the LEAST powerful option must be used.

That in mind, I don't see how (though I'd like to) someone can honestly say we should be able to do that (until the FAQ comes out in 2025, that is).

Eric

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:25:14

Post by: Nurglitch

Of course you can apply logic in different ways. You can apply it in the right way, that accurately captures the concepts expressed by the text, or the wrong ways that do not accurately capture the concepts expressed by the text. The problem isn't the logic, the problem is with the pre-logic. There's no point in demonstrating the soundness of a logical argument if that argument is a straw-man. Likewise there's no point to arguing the logic of some rule where there is no conceptual analysis to get everyone is on the same page. I've made a start, and whether I'm wrong or right is irrelevant to the usefulness of laying one's grammatical cards on the table besides one's logical cards.

Reply by: MagickalMemories - click to view full reply 

3197

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:26:38

Post by: MagickalMemories

Nurglitch wrote:

jlong05 wrote:So, your standpoint is that as the rule states the ENTIRE mob may replace their sluggas and choppas for shootas, but the rule does not say the ENTIRE mob MUST replace... then isn't is also valid by your reasoning that a mixed mob is also legal?

That is incorrect. I'm pointing out that the rule states that the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shoota. That means the only valid conclusion by classical first order predicate logic is if any models in the mob with sluggas and choppas replace those weapons with a shoota, then all models in the mob with sluggas and choppas must replace those weapons with a shoota.

jlong05 wrote:The problem is that the issue is with the first part of the rule (ENTIRE MOB) so the secondary part is inherent to that (MAY replace...) There is no reason to indicate the ENTIRE MOB MUST, as they are NOT required to replace unless you want to switch the weapons, but if you do want Shootas, then the ENTIRE mob MUST follow suit. As the Nob(which is part of the mob) doesn't have the appropriate weapons then the ENTIRE mob cannot exchange their choppas and sluggas as the ENTIRE mob doesn't have them. Only the REST do. The rule indicates the ENTIRE mob, not the REST of the mob.

That is incorrect. We know this to be true because having both sluggas and choppas are necessary conditions for the exchange.The universal quantity referred to by "The entire mob" is all the members of the mob with sluggas and choppa. They can only make the exchange if they have sluggas and choppas. You could say that the scope of "The entire mob" is qualified by the presence of those two conditions.

jlong05 wrote:The issue that you appear to be clinging to is the wording of 'may replace' as in it is each individual models choice, but that is not the case. It the choice of the player but its an ALL or nothing due to the prior point of ENTIRE Mob.

If I appear to be doing that, then I should clarify what I am doing. The term 'may' is useful when extracting logical information from its expression in English because it is often used to indicate a modality, either a necessity or a contingency, and usually a conditional relation between the two. Hence the player may or may not choose the option, but must apply the option to every model meeting the conditions.

jlong05 wrote:So your logic flow is flawed.

No, my reasoning is sound.

jlong05 wrote:When following a ruled logic flow, one must strictly adhere ALL rules that are identified, not just the parts one wants to use.

I agree. Furthermore in extracting logical information from statements expressed in English one must be careful to accurately preserve all of the rules that are expressed.

jlong05 wrote:Again, please someone; programmatically identify a proper logic flow that does not break any of the rules or requirements without taking things out of context or assuming the understanding of the rules designers. Unfortunately, I have been over this specific rule more times than I like to count, and I still cannot find a way it’s valid.

Sure. It's a simple matter of remembering that [edit]universal quantification is narrowed by the conjunction of sets (the set of models in the entire mob, the set of models with sluggas, the set of models with choppas)[/edit] . Hence "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" means [edit]"When this option is chosen, if any models in the mob have both a slugga and a choppa, then they lose the slugga and choppa and gain a shoota"[/edit].

The phrase "all models in the mob" is identical to "the entire mob", and both are qualified by the properties of having a slugga and having a choppa. The use of the construct "replace...with..." indicates that what is being replaced is a condition for replacement. But "may" is the keyword here because it indicates a contingency for the entire unit, and the conditional for that contingency (if slugga and choppa, then shoota).

[Edit: Oops, fixed that]

By the reasoning presented above, you eliminate the Nob from being part of the Mob...
The codex says "entire Mob may..." and you say that "You could say that the scope of "The entire mob" is qualified by the presence of those two conditions."
This eliminates the Nob from being part of "the entire Mob."
The problem is that you're interpreting "the entire mob" into "every member of the Mob that has these weapons."

You are putting way more words into the mouths of the rules designers.

In the same way you qualify "entire mob" loosely, to allow the Nob to "opt out," someone else could argue, conversely, that "entire" has a specific meaning (the whole thing) and, unless the sentence specifically eliminates a part of the whole, then the whole must take part, as no option for most of the Mob to take part was given. By that reasoning, a Nob has to (a) be part of the whole or (b) not be part. If he is NOT part of the Mob, then what is he?

Eric

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 05:41:16

Post by: jlong05

MagickalMemories wrote:In the same way you qualify "entire mob" loosely, to allow the Nob to "opt out," someone else could argue, conversely, that "entire" has a specific meaning (the whole thing) and, unless the sentence specifically eliminates a part of the whole, then the whole must take part, as no option for most of the Mob to take part was given. By that reasoning, a Nob has to (a) be part of the whole or (b) not be part. If he is NOT part of the Mob, then what is he?

Well said, Unfortunately, here is where the process spirals into a continual discussion with no end ever it sight.

Some read Entire as 'Those who can in the mob' while others (such as myself and the other maintainers), view Entire as the Whole of the unit where ALL members must be able to participate and if they cannot(such as not meeting the requirement to trade) then the Entire unit is prevented from said transaction.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 11:02:34

Post by: Redbeard

MagickalMemories wrote:
I agree that it is a matter of applying logic in different ways.
The problem, however, is that WITH PK is more powerful that WITHOUT PK, and GW's rulings are that the LEAST powerful option must be used.

What? Can you provide a page reference or URL that backs up this claim?

jlong05 wrote:
Well said, Unfortunately, here is where the process spirals into a continual discussion with no end ever it sight.

Some read Entire as 'Those who can in the mob' while others (such as myself and the other maintainers), view Entire as the Whole of the unit where ALL members must be able to participate and if they cannot(such as not meeting the requirement to trade) then the Entire unit is prevented from said transaction.

But you can agree that we are all using RAW, right? It's just that how the logic is applied differs.

The point of the thread isn't to debate how powerklaws get into ork squads, it's to try and encourage you AB40k guys to use a more liberal approach to what's considered legal in the tool that you work on. By flagging the option as illegal, you basically make that choice for everyone who uses AB40k. By leaving it legal, those who want to disallow it can simply not take them. Can you see how applying the more conservative interpretation makes the tool less useful?

Reply by: Stelek - click to view full reply 

5164

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 13:47:38

Post by: Stelek

GW designers reference page:

No redbeard, there isn't a page you can refer to. Cute question though.

You need to actually spend years working on the datafiles and GW might actually contact you.

You? You're just a customer doing next to nothing for the hobby, so odds are you'll never talk to the design team except at a live event.

Design logic:

GW's explained the logic to the maintainers over the course of the last decade.

They've also been kind enough to explain what they do and do not want in the AB files.

Just a heads up:

They used to explain their design theory and RAW/RAI issues, but people like you (yes, YOU) drove them off the internet completely.

Maybe you noticed GW shut down it's message boards because stupid threads like this one would occur 2,3,4,5 times a day.

You seem to believe the slippery slope is the way to go.
Whether you believe anything people tell you, believe this: It isn't and never will be.

You are, of course, free to try and get the entire game system retooled yourself to your less exacting standard and see what it gets you.

Oh right, the v2 mess is what it gets you.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 14:13:18

Post by: Redbeard

Stelek wrote:You? You're just a customer doing next to nothing for the hobby, so odds are you'll never talk to the design team except at a live event.

Interesting. You don't know me, what, if anything, I do for the hobby, or who I do or do not talk to.

I raised this topic here because the forums on the AB40k maintainer's site were locking any thread that dealt with this topic. Since joining the conversation, jlong05 has been civil and reasonable. You, on the other hand, have added nothing of any value, and have done nothing but level accusations at others. Where's that ignore button?

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 14:50:06

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
Well said, Unfortunately, here is where the process spirals into a continual discussion with no end ever it sight.

Some read Entire as 'Those who can in the mob' while others (such as myself and the other maintainers), view Entire as the Whole of the unit where ALL members must be able to participate and if they cannot(such as not meeting the requirement to trade) then the Entire unit is prevented from said transaction.

But you can agree that we are all using RAW, right? It's just that how the logic is applied differs.

The point of the thread isn't to debate how powerklaws get into ork squads, it's to try and encourage you AB40k guys to use a more liberal approach to what's considered legal in the tool that you work on. By flagging the option as illegal, you basically make that choice for everyone who uses AB40k. By leaving it legal, those who want to disallow it can simply not take them. Can you see how applying the more conservative interpretation makes the tool less useful?

NO I can't agree as the way I read RAW and the word Entire its Black and White for me. I am sorry I don't see how the other way of reading the word Entire can be contrued the way it is being. It's not possible.

Now, let's clarify the needs you have. There appears to be confusion in this thread as some members clearly indicate as long as the option is available and flags it as invalid that is fine. But your statement above indicates that isn't what you want, you want it to be in and not flagging as invalid. Is that correct?

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 15:27:21

Post by: Redbeard

Not flagging it as illegal is what I believe to be the more useful behaviour, that is correct.


I understand your point of view about entire. However, that's not the only way of reading it. I know that is how you have chosen to read it, but it can, using standard English RAW, also be interpreted as meaning that every member of the mob that has X may replace it with Y as a group. This doesn't include an implicit restriction that every member has to have an X to begin with, just that if they make the change, then everyone with X must exchange it for Y, rather than only some of them making the change.

I don't expect to change your mind about how you interpret the RAW, but that isn't the only RAW interpretation.

In cases where you encounter situations like this, where there are two RAW interpretations, there's a two by two matrix of what can happen:

If the user is less restrictive and AB is less restrictive, the user's output meets their needs.
If the user is more restrictive and AB is more restrictive, the user's output meets their needs.

If the user is more restrictive and AB is less restrictive, the user is able to avoid taking items that they believe are illegal, and the output is valid.

If the user is less restrictive and AB is more restrictive, the user's output gets slapped with failed validation reports.


If you make it a legal selection, people who believe it isn't legal, or who are attending events like the UK GT, can generate lists that don't use it, and there's no issue. It's only when the tool is more restrictive than the user that you get usage problems.

Reply by: Stelek - click to view full reply 

5164

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 15:37:12

Post by: Stelek

Redbeard wrote:Not flagging it as illegal is what I believe to be the more useful behaviour, that is correct.
It's only when the tool is more restrictive than the user that you get usage problems.

No matter how you put it, it's whining to get your way.

Sooner or later, the answer you are going to get is 'tough' followed by silence.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 15:43:58

Post by: KiMonarrez

Redbeard wrote:You, on the other hand, have added nothing of any value, and have done nothing but level accusations at others. Where's that ignore button?

bottom right.

Reply by: smart_alex - click to view full reply 

1656

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 15:51:29

Post by: smart_alex

So you guys like the software or not. Ive paid thousands for apoc and regular GW stuff but still have not forked over the money for the software for some reason. Is it worth it. Right now Im an Excel guy.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 15:57:34

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:Not flagging it as illegal is what I believe to be the more useful behaviour, that is correct.


I understand your point of view about entire. However, that's not the only way of reading it. I know that is how you have chosen to read it, but it can, using standard English RAW, also be interpreted as meaning that every member of the mob that has X may replace it with Y as a group. This doesn't include an implicit restriction that every member has to have an X to begin with, just that if they make the change, then everyone with X must exchange it for Y, rather than only some of them making the change.

I don't expect to change your mind about how you interpret the RAW, but that isn't the only RAW interpretation.

In cases where you encounter situations like this, where there are two RAW interpretations, there's a two by two matrix of what can happen:

If the user is less restrictive and AB is less restrictive, the user's output meets their needs.
If the user is more restrictive and AB is more restrictive, the user's output meets their needs.

If the user is more restrictive and AB is less restrictive, the user is able to avoid taking items that they believe are illegal, and the output is valid.

If the user is less restrictive and AB is more restrictive, the user's output gets slapped with failed validation reports.


If you make it a legal selection, people who believe it isn't legal, or who are attending events like the UK GT, can generate lists that don't use it, and there's no issue. It's only when the tool is more restrictive than the user that you get usage problems.

But, How does the users's opponent know about the issue in the first place then. If say you wanted this approach and generated a list allowing the PK in the Shooty mob and then go to an event that disallows it but you show the list and they see its from AB and its marked valid and it gets through you get something that was disallowed. (Call that the Organizer's fault as they didn't catch it), but take that same list to a LGS where friendly games are being played and you play with someone that is not an Ork player, doesn't have the Ork Codex and ignores most Ork forum threads as they dont pertain to him so he is unaware of the issue completly. You play him and then during the game or afterward he finds out you 'may' have cheated as you used a possible invalid unit without telling him first. As your list indicates no errors how does he know to ask. Will you openly volunteer this information?

This is the crux of my previous statement to others who simply wanted it to show and flag as invalid (which it already did). My comment then is that this will not resolve the issue, as then people would want it to not flag invalid (which is exactly the issue you had and the reason for starting this entire thread to begin with). This is where the issue is, as the RULE is NOT 100% valid by your reasoning. You are using a point of view that makes it valid, however on the other side of the coin, the maintainer's view being more restrictive will ALWAYS be 100% valid. If you build you army with no PK then its 100% valid, but if you build it with a PK, it might not be valid. This is the point the maintainers are trying to make.

It's abvious that we cannot resolve this issue through this discussion as everyone has, and is entitled, to their own point of view, but the maintainers of the official AB 40k datafiles will continue to manage from the more restrictive point of view in an effort to always provide 100% valid lists. This provides a stronger more supported tool for the user community and protects those in the game from players that may attempt to try cheat. I am not saying you are cheating, but some players who view the PK issue as a complete no woudl if you were playing them. This protects that group who is unaware of the contested issue and is why it is GW's issue to fix via a FAQ.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 16:02:30

Post by: jlong05

smart_alex wrote:So you guys like the software or not. Ive paid thousands for apoc and regular GW stuff but still have not forked over the money for the software for some reason. Is it worth it. Right now Im an Excel guy.

In my oppinion it IS worth it. But remember that you are NOT buying the datafile support, you are buying the software and the tools to create the datafiles yourself if you choose to not use the freely provided ones. If you want more information on the ab40k datafiles and what bugs may exist in certain lists and what are being worked on, I would suggest visiting the maintainer site at: www.ab40k.org

You can also post bugs you find there as well. Overall I prefer AB as the output lists are clear and easy to read with all the needed information avilable to me without the need to flip through a codex generally. I also trust those lists more often as I am aware of the effort and what bugs/issues are current.

Reply by: usernamesareannoying - click to view full reply 

3567

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 16:16:09

Post by: usernamesareannoying

so can a mob of boys with sootas have a power klaw nob or not?

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 16:24:02

Post by: Redbeard

jlong05 wrote:But, How does the users's opponent know about the issue in the first place then. If say you wanted this approach and generated a list allowing the PK in the Shooty mob and then go to an event that disallows it but you show the list and they see its from AB and its marked valid and it gets through you get something that was disallowed. (Call that the Organizer's fault as they didn't catch it)

Yes, that would be the organizer's fault. As I mentioned before, AB40k datafiles are capable of producing illegal lists, even though the goal is that they're not going to. Furthermore, anyone who wants to cheat is capable of producing an HTML file and editing anything they want into it. Anyone who trusts an opponent's list simply because it was AB printed is a fool. Either you trust your opponent as a human being, or you check their stuff for yourself.

This provides a stronger more supported tool for the user community and protects those in the game from players that may attempt to try cheat.

I'd venture the other way. The more absolutely correct AB is, the easier it is for the real cheats to get away with editing html files to remove/change values, as people won't think to double-check them.

You're right, we're not going to agree. I will continue to make available modified datafiles for the few cases where a less restrictive interpretation is needed.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 16:30:41

Post by: KiMonarrez

smart_alex wrote:So you guys like the software or not. Ive paid thousands for apoc and regular GW stuff but still have not forked over the money for the software for some reason. Is it worth it. Right now Im an Excel guy.

I loved AB back in V2 days. I didn't want to update to v3 as I really don't agree with the philosophy of charging someone for a liscense, yearly, for a product you already bought. I'd have stayed with v2 if I hadn't lost my disc. And for the people throwing around the piracy accusation, I never shared my copy with anyone, it's just wrong. I'm insulted by the insinuation.

Now, as for v3, thus far, my experience with it has left a bad taste in my mouth, though I'm willing to forgive. I find the attitude of the maintainers, thus far, to be less than palatable. To be honest, if you havne't really had problems doing the math for yourself, and don't have a problem with excel, I'd stick with it. You already have the application, and you don't get any of the headaches, IMHO.

Reply by: snooggums - click to view full reply 

515

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 16:52:25

Post by: snooggums

KiMonarrez wrote:I loved AB back in V2 days. I didn't want to update to v3 as I really don't agree with the philosophy of charging someone for a liscense, yearly, for a product you already bought. I'd have stayed with v2 if I hadn't lost my disc. And for the people throwing around the piracy accusation, I never shared my copy with anyone, it's just wrong. I'm insulted by the insinuation.

Now, as for v3, thus far, my experience with it has left a bad taste in my mouth, though I'm willing to forgive. I find the attitude of the maintainers, thus far, to be less than palatable. To be honest, if you havne't really had problems doing the math for yourself, and don't have a problem with excel, I'd stick with it. You already have the application, and you don't get any of the headaches, IMHO.

What's funny is you don't have to pay a yearly license to use AB3. You pay for one click updating. By not updating the license you get a "License expired" message in the top right corner and you have to load the files manually, which takes all of about 5 easy to read, easy to navagate steps starting with clicking "Update files". You do not lose any functionality, can still get the most recent updates and can even update AB itself with an expired license. Mine's been expired since the first year and works great!

Basically every negative thing you have posted in this thread has been wrong or based on ignorace of features and posted information on the AB website.

smart_alex: as the website you get AB from says Ab is a tool that allows you to make and print army lists using user generated lists. The advatage is the output format, listing all your stats, organization and special abilities in an easy to read, easy to share set of formats. The only negatives are the user generated lists light have errors (which are easy to note with pen or with the handy unit notes function) and that old army lists might be rendered unusable in newer versions of the army lists because of updates. You can always save a text file version to reenter the army though, if you need to.

Reply by: tomguycot - click to view full reply 

5147

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 18:53:17

Post by: tomguycot

smart_alex wrote:So you guys like the software or not. Ive paid thousands for apoc and regular GW stuff but still have not forked over the money for the software for some reason. Is it worth it. Right now Im an Excel guy.

Even though I complained some earlier in the thread I would have to say that overall I like Army Builder a lot and do not regret paying for it. The thing I like the most is that the lists it prints out are easy to read, look neat, and there is some degree of error checking.

The program itself I like a lot and I have no problems with how it runs on my computer but with that said though I have been very much "off put" by the attitude ot the data file maintainers in this thread. It is unfortunate that all of the time and effort that they put into voluntarily creating the 40k datafiles should be so tarnished by the rather arrogant attitudes displayed in this thread.

P.S. Shame on you Games Workshop as well. If you had the common decency to release a simple one page FAQ for the Ork book to clarify this issue for your PAYING customers none of this would even be an issue. The issue with the nobs' power claws has been known since November. There is no good reason why at least a limited FAQ on this one fundamental issue couldn't have been released by now. After all, it's not like this is some obscure thing that will hardly ever come up for some unit selection that almost no one will use. This is the basic Ork troop! That's probably enough ranting on that though.

Reply by: Balance - click to view full reply 

207

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 19:30:35

Post by: Balance

Stelek wrote:Maybe you noticed GW shut down it's message boards because stupid threads like this one would occur 2,3,4,5 times a day.

I thought they said it was because "other internet communities did a better job."

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 19:37:19

Post by: jlong05

tomguycot wrote:The program itself I like a lot and I have no problems with how it runs on my computer but with that said though I have been very much "off put" by the attitude ot the data file maintainers in this thread. It is unfortunate that all of the time and effort that they put into voluntarily creating the 40k datafiles should be so tarnished by the rather arrogant attitudes displayed in this thread.

I am just curious, what attitudes have 'put you off'? I believe the maintainers, myself included, have done well at trying to keep the peace. Mind you the ONLY maintainers(programmers and testers) that have made ANY posts in this thread are: myself(jlong05), shaggai, Ghaz, Fyrebyrd, and Spack. In a review of all posts from them, I do not see any issues with attitude and in general most posts are trying to keep the peace without devolving the thread into a flame war.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 19:56:53

Post by: KiMonarrez

You know, Snoog, back when 3.0 came out, it sure was implied that you'd have to keep updating that liscense. I remember talking it over with all the other users of 2.0 at my FLGS. Some were looking forward to it, some weren't. Most of the guys that were turned off by it was due to the implication that you'd have to continue paying for it. I, personally, had exactly ZERO problems with 2.0 and really didn't see the point in getting the new one if the old one worked just fine. In fact, I'd still be using it today if I hadn't lost it.

See, as a rule, I don't buy the newest thing, just cause it's newer than than what I have that happens to still work. I still have and use the cell phone I bought in 2000. Still works JUST FINE. Don't NEED that new razor or iPhone.

So explain to me, use small words if you feel the need, exactly HOW I don't have the right, or not feel the need to complain about a product I payed good money for, that DIDN'T WORK AT ALL. And don't give me that crap about it being User Error. I bought Chaos Gate back in the day. I know what a crap application looks like. And if 90% of the time the program crashed after it started launching, for 2-3 weeks. Didn't matter if I uninstalled and reinstalled (cause it wouldn't run). Uninstalled and redownloaded and reinstalled (because even the DEMO woundn't run). Uninstalled, redownloaded, reinstalled and hopped on my right foot. It wouldn't run.

On a WHIM, I wanted to see what the other skins looked like, so I downloaded a skin. Much to my surprise, AB launched to download the skin. AB worked just fine after that. I decided I didn't like the office skin, so I changed back... and guess what. AB woulnd't launch. I downloaded another different skin (the green one), and AB works. So it's plain for me to see that something about the default skin causes AB to crash on this computer, and that kinda sucks, as I like the blue background.

Explain to me again, how that's USER ERROR? Seriously, I want to read your rationale on this.

I need a good laugh.

As for the mindset/policy of the maintainers. That's plain for all to see from their posts, and not just from responses to me.

Now where's that Ignore button.

Reply by: Stelek - click to view full reply 

5164

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:19:02

Post by: Stelek

Balance wrote:

Stelek wrote:Maybe you noticed GW shut down it's message boards because stupid threads like this one would occur 2,3,4,5 times a day.

I thought they said it was because "other internet communities did a better job."

What they said in public and in private are indeed two different things.

Reply by: snooggums - click to view full reply 

515

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:28:35

Post by: snooggums

KiMonarrez wrote:You know, Snoog, back when 3.0 came out, it sure was implied that you'd have to keep updating that liscense. I remember talking it over with all the other users of 2.0 at my FLGS. Some were looking forward to it, some weren't. Most of the guys that were turned off by it was due to the implication that you'd have to continue paying for it. I, personally, had exactly ZERO problems with 2.0 and really didn't see the point in getting the new one if the old one worked just fine. In fact, I'd still be using it today if I hadn't lost it.

See, as a rule, I don't buy the newest thing, just cause it's newer than than what I have that happens to still work. I still have and use the cell phone I bought in 2000. Still works JUST FINE. Don't NEED that new razor or iPhone.

So explain to me, use small words if you feel the need, exactly HOW I don't have the right, or not feel the need to complain about a product I payed good money for, that DIDN'T WORK AT ALL. And don't give me that crap about it being User Error. I bought Chaos Gate back in the day. I know what a crap application looks like. And if 90% of the time the program crashed after it started launching, for 2-3 weeks. Didn't matter if I uninstalled and reinstalled (cause it wouldn't run). Uninstalled and redownloaded and reinstalled (because even the DEMO woundn't run). Uninstalled, redownloaded, reinstalled and hopped on my right foot. It wouldn't run.

On a WHIM, I wanted to see what the other skins looked like, so I downloaded a skin. Much to my surprise, AB launched to download the skin. AB worked just fine after that. I decided I didn't like the office skin, so I changed back... and guess what. AB woulnd't launch. I downloaded another different skin (the green one), and AB works. So it's plain for me to see that something about the default skin causes AB to crash on this computer, and that kinda sucks, as I like the blue background.

Explain to me again, how that's USER ERROR? Seriously, I want to read your rationale on this.

I need a good laugh.

As for the mindset/policy of the maintainers. That's plain for all to see from their posts, and not just from responses to me.

Now where's that Ignore button.

AB3 was a large step up from 2 even if you don't think so, and really it is your fauilt for losing the disk to AB2 so you would have had to replace it with something. All your ranting about how you were failed by the company comes from expectations that do not match reality, sure they said that the license would have to be renewed every year for the easy access, I purchased it when it first came out with the understanding that I would just have to update manually when the license ran out. It was clear to me at the time, so that would be your misconception that you had to pay each year.

Your errors with it crashing depending on the skin are limited to yourself as far as I can tell, who else is having this problem? Your extreme reaction to people pointing out they don't have problems with AB like you do means that you are taking the problem personally, and your ranting about how AB is a faulty product when you are the only one with that problem indicates that you most likely have something on your computer that is causing the problem. I'm not going to review the thread to see if you ranted about trying to get your money back, but when it first installed and failed to work did you cancel your payment ro try to return the product? You mentioned downloading a skin on a whim and installing it to a program that you said didn't work. That doesn't even make sense.

I never said you could not complain or that you needed the latest and greatest, that's all up to you, but ranting and raving about a problem that only you have makes it look like you are the problem you are having. Also asking for an explination and then saying "Where is that ignore button" is both condescending. It's like saying "Tell me your opionion, but first I'm going to hang up".

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:31:56

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:But, How does the users's opponent know about the issue in the first place then. If say you wanted this approach and generated a list allowing the PK in the Shooty mob and then go to an event that disallows it but you show the list and they see its from AB and its marked valid and it gets through you get something that was disallowed. (Call that the Organizer's fault as they didn't catch it)

Yes, that would be the organizer's fault. As I mentioned before, AB40k datafiles are capable of producing illegal lists, even though the goal is that they're not going to. Furthermore, anyone who wants to cheat is capable of producing an HTML file and editing anything they want into it. Anyone who trusts an opponent's list simply because it was AB printed is a fool. Either you trust your opponent as a human being, or you check their stuff for yourself.

Ok, I see your point, but disagree with it. All because you may or may not trust your opponent doesn't always grant you the ability to validate their army list. I personally do not own every single Codex in the game (I have most, but not all) and this prevents me from truly validating my opponents list. If my opponent went out of his/her way to cheat and edited a lists html output, I would likely never know. This is why I do not advocate that method of updating a perceived error. Write in on the output in pencil and then discuss it. Your approach keeps potential hot issues hidden from everyone as although you may agree with Interpretation A; your opponent may not even know about it and may not know if there is even an issue to want to contest it. By flagging it as an error and having that print, your opponent is made aware of the issue in which case you get the opportunity to discuss and agree or not. But your method prevents this, and your recommendation to everyone else is to just edit the output file itself. This isn't the way it should work.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:35:08

Post by: KiMonarrez

@Stelek

Well, Christ, man. They put out FAQ's that were painfully obviously shoddy afterthoughts which did nothing BUT generate questions. Bit OT, but I remember the time span in there with the Dark Angels FAQ and the inquisition books. In our original codex, we coudn't have any allies. Then daemonhunters came out, and we could (per the RAW, way against the fluff though) have allies. Then they posted a new FAQ that expressly contradicted EVERYTHING in the Daemonhunter codex about allies (for Dark Angels anyway), so then you're left with trying to figure out which one is right. As you have 2 official sources saying 2 polar opposites are legal. WTF?!?! And then witchhunters came out and allies were legal, and they didn't update the FAQ again.

So which did you go with? The 100% legal RAW of no allies in the FAQ? Or the 100% legal RAW of allies allowed in 2 different codex?

Of course they were flooded with questions. They painted themselves into that corner. No matter what they said in public or private, they did it to themselves and have nobody else to blame.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:37:20

Post by: dogma

Stelek wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Not flagging it as illegal is what I believe to be the more useful behaviour, that is correct.
It's only when the tool is more restrictive than the user that you get usage problems.

No matter how you put it, it's whining to get your way.

Sooner or later, the answer you are going to get is 'tough' followed by silence.

Explain to me, please, how this was a useful comment? Honestly, you should at least have the decency to address the point Redbeard has made; rather than choosing to simply make a futile attempt at imposing your will via excessive abrasion. I honestly hope your arrogance is founded on some form of substantive talent, because clearly you hold an opinion of yourself which does not seem commensurate with your capacity to debate a given issue. Its almost as though you know that your point is indefensible, and so simply choose to lable dissenting perspectives as insignificant so you aren't forced to consider the validity of your own assumptions.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:39:52

Post by: jlong05

KiMonarrez wrote:@Stelek

Well, Christ, man. They put out FAQ's that were painfully obviously shoddy afterthoughts which did nothing BUT generate questions. Bit OT, but I remember the time span in there with the Dark Angels FAQ and the inquisition books. In our original codex, we coudn't have any allies. Then daemonhunters came out, and we could (per the RAW, way against the fluff though) have allies. Then they posted a new FAQ that expressly contradicted EVERYTHING in the Daemonhunter codex about allies (for Dark Angels anyway), so then you're left with trying to figure out which one is right. As you have 2 official sources saying 2 polar opposites are legal. WTF?!?! And then witchhunters came out and allies were legal, and they didn't update the FAQ again.

So which did you go with? The 100% legal RAW of no allies in the FAQ? Or the 100% legal RAW of allies allowed in 2 different codex?

Of course they were flooded with questions. They painted themselves into that corner. No matter what they said in public or private, they did it to themselves and have nobody else to blame.

Last published document is always the most current and as such would take precedence.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:43:39

Post by: KiMonarrez

Or we DA players could just notice that the FAQ's were 75% crap as they had the janitor do them. That was the impression I got reading through it anyways.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:49:42

Post by: jlong05

KiMonarrez wrote:Or we DA players could just notice that the FAQ's were 75% crap as they had the janitor do them. That was the impression I got reading through it anyways.

As a DA player myself, I understand the frustration, however that doesn't change the standing from GW that the last published document is the current rules that should be followed. Any other interpretation is no longer using the rules as outlined by GW and has instead devolved into a house rules game. There is nothing wrong with that, except when playing at sanctioned events, you would have to change your lists to be valid based on the last document rules.

Reply by: Stelek - click to view full reply 

5164

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 20:55:57

Post by: Stelek

Sorry dogma, about 2-3 pages ago I put up or shut up.

Redbeard didn't answer.

So, my output went from useful to less-than-useful in direct lockstep with the other posters in this thread.

As soon as he answers any of my questions without telling everyone the maintainers suck azz, I'll probably go back to being slightly more useful.

Hope that answers your question to some degree.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 21:08:56

Post by: KiMonarrez

Yeah, well then how much of the FAQ would then remain valid? I vaguely recall there being a ruling in that FAQ about a ravenwing techmarine that was painfully obviously against the RAW in the DA codex itself. It created a problem out of thin air.

This was what GW did to us. Support of their product, any product for that matter, should not be an afterthought. It's just bad business.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 21:29:15

Post by: jlong05

KiMonarrez wrote:Yeah, well then how much of the FAQ would then remain valid? I vaguely recall there being a ruling in that FAQ about a ravenwing techmarine that was painfully obviously against the RAW in the DA codex itself. It created a problem out of thin air.

This was what GW did to us. Support of their product, any product for that matter, should not be an afterthought. It's just bad business.

I agree, but you seem to be taking that attitude out on the users here in this forum. None of us, that I know of, are GW employees and therefore none of us to responsible for the issues that GW may or may not have caused due to the poorly written gaming material. We as gamers simply try to get along within the boundaries that the rules have identified. I am sorry that these boundaries have prevented you from a good time.

Reply by: Meep357 - click to view full reply 

2690

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 22:06:20

Post by: Meep357

Redbeard wrote: Furthermore, anyone who wants to cheat is capable of producing an HTML file and editing anything they want into it.

Or they can write their own AB datafiles.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 22:59:04

Post by: KiMonarrez

@jlong05

What gives you that idea? I understand that GW put out a crap product. I understand (from reading the rules discussion you guys have been going through), that the rules interpretation can go either way. You (the maintainers) don't know if it's 100% legal. You also don't if it's not. You just don't know.

I disagree with the policy to remove the option from the end user as you're not sure. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're sure. If I were an ork player, I'd want the option (and not have to do it the soooooooooper secret way). I chafe at the idea of someone else making the choice for me. If back in the day (and I don't recall if this were the case) AB took away my daemonhunter allies due to the painfully obviously wrong FAQ, and the maintainers refused, I'd take umbrage.

That's my issue. I disagree with taking the "strictest RAW interpretation" on an issue that's not an open and shut case. If AB were to prevent me from taking a razorback for a 10 man codex tac squad... I'm fine with that. That's 100% against the RAW. On things you're really not sure about, I don't like that the decision is made for me.

I like the lists I play with to have a nice "finished look" to them, and don't like the idea of pen and inking in something that I believe should be there (and I abhor the idea of being beardy/cheesy in rules interpretations). Especially if I payed for a tool that should acomplish the finished look I want.

Reply by: chromedog - click to view full reply 

3802

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/18 23:33:41

Post by: chromedog

After over a decade of being a pen, paper and codex to excel using player, I finally bit the bullet and bought a copy of Army builder (3). It's the first piece of software that I own that hasn't crashed or given me a "windows must close, we are sorry ..." message.

I had no problem giving an ork shoota nob a klaw (guess I found the soooooper secret option switch by accident), the only issue I had was finding how to switch the SM traits option on.

I'm a TO, myself. I needed a tool to assist me in validating submitted army lists. AB does this very well, and is reasonably painless. The relevant codex is alway by my side when checking lists, but it makes it easier to spot the "Say what?" moments.

If I knew html better, I would write my own stuff - but after doing up custom macros for excel for years that did a similar thing, I'm getting too old for this crap.

I like that other people with more time/enthusiasm are writing/maintaining the files for this product, and I applaud them for it.

I come from a generation where if you didn't like something, YOU either did it yourself,, or put up until someone else did, rather than just endlessly whine and bitch about it.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 00:29:20

Post by: jlong05

KiMonarrez wrote:@jlong05

What gives you that idea? I understand that GW put out a crap product. I understand (from reading the rules discussion you guys have been going through), that the rules interpretation can go either way. You (the maintainers) don't know if it's 100% legal. You also don't if it's not. You just don't know.

I disagree with the policy to remove the option from the end user as you're not sure. To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you're sure. If I were an ork player, I'd want the option (and not have to do it the soooooooooper secret way). I chafe at the idea of someone else making the choice for me. If back in the day (and I don't recall if this were the case) AB took away my daemonhunter allies due to the painfully obviously wrong FAQ, and the maintainers refused, I'd take umbrage.

That's my issue. I disagree with taking the "strictest RAW interpretation" on an issue that's not an open and shut case. If AB were to prevent me from taking a razorback for a 10 man codex tac squad... I'm fine with that. That's 100% against the RAW. On things you're really not sure about, I don't like that the decision is made for me.

I like the lists I play with to have a nice "finished look" to them, and don't like the idea of pen and inking in something that I believe should be there (and I abhor the idea of being beardy/cheesy in rules interpretations). Especially if I payed for a tool that should acomplish the finished look I want.

OK. If you havnt been pointing fingers at the datafiles then, my mistake. But honestly it's getting very old about how its a sooooooooooper secret way to get the Klaw. It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error. It never was a secret to do it. You just have to do the unit a specific way for the possibility to even have a chance. Again, this goes to the LOGIC flows I posted about yesterday. If you had followed those flows you would see you CANNOT do the upgrade at all one way, and you MIGHT be able to do it the otherway given a loose interpretation of the rules and English language.

Now I refuse to get back into this argument again. It served no purpose before, as you and others complained, INCORRECTLY, that the issue was because the Klaw was not available and should be available (but flagged), when the REAL issue, as identfied by the OP is quite clearly that it WAS being flagged and he disagreed with that and removed the warning as his interpretation says it is legal. The issue now is that we have one set of files that say the Klaw is 100% legal now(developed and released by the OP) and one set of files that says its an error based on RAW.

This is a perfect example of how these datafiles will NEVER meet everyones needs and therefore create more problems than they are worth.

As for the FAQ issue, the maintainers are not here to interpret the minds of the GW game designers. They are here to implement the rules, however unhappy it makes them, so everyone is provided the same rule set to keep things fair. This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

Reply by: KiMonarrez - click to view full reply 

685

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 03:37:03

Post by: KiMonarrez

jlong05 wrote:
This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 04:48:04

Post by: jlong05

KiMonarrez wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
This mens so we DO NOT have to interpret, we must follow RAW as closely as possible.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Man my grammar and spelling was bad there. What it was meant to say is, that since we are unable to read the minds of the game developers we are not supposed to try to interpret what they meant, but instead simply follow RAW as closely as possible.

As for good luck on that, I will say thanks.

Reply by: Buoyancy - click to view full reply 

3884

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 06:06:30

Post by: Buoyancy

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Reply by: akira5665 - click to view full reply 

4892

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 06:24:48

Post by: akira5665

Buoyancy -
Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Post me a link where I can get your 40k AB files, and I will stop thinking you are being a little too high-handed in your estimation of others skills.

The AB40k files are a little out of date, there are a few little issues with some of the options, but...........

It's like the people who slag off at Windows as an Operating System, who talk about how 'Bill Gates is a tyrannical Gakhead"

Design a better, more universally accepted and used OS, or shut up for heck's sake.

The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

That really got up my nose mate. Post a link of your own version, or shut the Gak up.

And if you mean by the 'Community' everyone, including yourself...........

Reply by: Janthkin - click to view full reply 

1406

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 06:55:11

Post by: Janthkin

Buoyancy wrote:

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriatly as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error.

I'm not convinced. I'm also a patent attorney, with a computer science undergrad degree; I like to think my reading comprehension is a touch higher than that of a 5 year old, thanks.



Someday, people will realize that resorting to insults does not bolster their arguments....

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 13:24:40

Post by: jlong05

Buoyancy wrote:

jlong05 wrote:It isn't, it's a simple application of logic to do it and its flagged appropriately as an error.

Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Honestly, I have no idea how I should respond to this. It’s obvious your intent is little more than an effort to create some sort of flame war here. Your comments have no additional useful content, and oddly enough, I think you accomplished insulting every other member of the forums here as in your opinion they must not have greater comprehension than that of a five year-old. As for my education level and your comments thereof, I am certain my college professors would take offense to the accusations.

Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

You are fully entitled to your opinions, and I am glad you have them, but this thread further proves that even the sentiment of those for the rule are not equal. On one side of the fence you have the Maintainers and other players that say its against RAW(From strict English Rules), on the other side you actually have 2 different groups. Group A, simply wants the option included for the Klaw, and it to flag as an error so that in games they have the option to include the Klaw and discuss the matter with their opponent. Group B, which the OP and it appears, yourself also, want the option to be included with no error flagged.

I honestly have no understanding of why this would be the case as there clearly is a discrepancy in the rule for it and it should be addressed in EVERY game played, but if the error flag were removed no one would know of the issue on the wording and therefore it would kept hidden from the opponent.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 14:11:33

Post by: H.B.M.C.

It's simple.

You leave the option in. People who think that Shootas can't have a PK Nob won't take it, people who do think they can will.

Everyone wins. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

BYE

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 14:20:50

Post by: Redbeard

jlong05 wrote:
Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

It isn't a loose interpretation of English, it's a common sense interpretation. Your interpretation of the sentence invents a restriction where none exists.

If you say everyone must exchange X for Y, the fact that some people don't have X does not invalidate the instruction. You keep using biased language, calling the alternative interpretation 'loose English'. It isn't loose English, it's English that we use every day.

In the military, sometimes they change the standard issue gear. Not all troopers are issued standard issue gear, some have specialist equipment. When the command makes the proclaimation that the entire army must upgrade their M16- to a M16-1a does the existence of soldiers who don't have an M16 to begin with invalidate this instruction? No, it doesn't. Everyone who has the M16 goes to the armoury and gets a new gun, and those who weren't issued the M-16 to begin with don't do anything.

Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 14:28:33

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:
Now I guess the only bit of your tirade that should be addressed specifically is the comment on loose logic. You my friend, are correct, and I should never have made such an odd statement. It's the loose interpretation of the English language that causes the issues with the logic flow in this rules issue. It requires the players to take a work such as Entire and define the meaning of that word to be LESS than what it is. Does Entire mean whole or only those of the whole that can? This is the loose interpretation I referred to as loose logic. In actuality it is not loose logic, but an loose interpretation of English.

It isn't a loose interpretation of English, it's a common sense interpretation. Your interpretation of the sentence invents a restriction where none exists.

If you say everyone must exchange X for Y, the fact that some people don't have X does not invalidate the instruction. You keep using biased language, calling the alternative interpretation 'loose English'. It isn't loose English, it's English that we use every day.

In the military, sometimes they change the standard issue gear. Not all troopers are issued standard issue gear, some have specialist equipment. When the command makes the proclaimation that the entire army must upgrade their M16- to a M16-1a does the existence of soldiers who don't have an M16 to begin with invalidate this instruction? No, it doesn't. Everyone who has the M16 goes to the armoury and gets a new gun, and those who weren't issued the M-16 to begin with don't do anything.

Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

Understand, I see your point, but you are interpretting it on real life examples and not on the rules as outlined by GW. GW has had a very strict view of the rules for a number of years now which is what causes that strict assessment of the rule. Also, I have been very clear that I believe the PKs are valid, but by the strict rules interpretation that GW uses to evaluate the game, they are not. This is why they get flagged as an error. When GW gets off their duff, and fixes the issue with a clear FAQ then it can be fixed, but it is GW that sets the standard. Not the players. The players however are free to adapt the rules as they see fit, but that doesn't always mean that the adapted rule will be allowed in all cases, such as some friendly games, and some tournaments.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 14:30:22

Post by: jlong05

H.B.M.C. wrote:It's simple.

You leave the option in. People who think that Shootas can't have a PK Nob won't take it, people who do think they can will.

Everyone wins. I don't understand why this is so difficult.

BYE

I think the issue now is that it gets flagged as an error which is printed out. The OP, and a few others, don't want this as it indicates the error and they don't believe it is an error.

Reply by: Spack - click to view full reply 

2541

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 15:42:13

Post by: Spack

Buoyancy wrote:The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

I don't see you volunteering to start another group of people who will spend their free time working on 40k files. Why don't you "put your money where your mouth is"? Just download ABCreator, and start building your own files - there's nothing stopping you.

It's comments like this that sometimes make me wonder why the maintainers bother. It's comments like this that make me wonder why I give my time and money over to running the www.ab40k.org site (and before me there was Warmonger, and before that Imhotep - hopefully I haven't forgotten anyone; and of course not forgetting the maintainers and testers too). Then I remember all the people who use the files and don't make asinine comments like this, and that the people who think they can makes demands when they haven't even got the motivation to do something for themselves are a minority, and so I'll keep the site running at my own expense and I'll continue to help out the ab40k maintainers and testers when I can.

So are you going to create your own 40k files for AB? If you think you can do a better job, go ahead and prove it.

Redbeard wrote:
Your interpretation requires the addition of "If every member of the entire mob has a slugga and choppa, they may exchange..." in order to work as you keep insisting, both in standard English, and standard logic. There's nothing loose about my interpretation of the language or logic.

"Entire" already infers "every member". Your use of "every member of the entire mob" is simply using one term to reinforce another, and is unnecessary. If the codex didn't use "entire" then there'd be a RaW point for allowing the PK, but the fact that "entire" is used makes it obvious, at least to me and others, that it does require every member to have that weapon. If it wasn't intended that way, why use "entire"? And as to the "may", it's obvious that it gives the option of either upgrading the mob or not upgrading - it's not a per model permissive, it's for the "entire" mob. If it stated "must" instead "may" (as suggested as the required term in an earlier post) then that would mean that you could never keep the original weapons the squad has.

What makes you think that "entire" doesn't mean "every member"? After all, if it wasn't every member, it wouldn't be the "entire mob", it would only be a "majority of the mob", or "almost all of the mob", or some other term that referred to less than the whole. Have you checked for dictionary definitions of "entire"; eg.

"having all the parts or elements; whole; complete:"

Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 16:21:05

Post by: Nurglitch

Here's some translation tips, courtesy of Peter Suber, that people unfamiliar with logic expressed in natural (English) language can use to understand how to read (and model) rules.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm

Reply by: grey_death - click to view full reply 

372

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/19 17:45:07

Post by: grey_death

Buoyancy wrote:Except, as has already been proven to every single person with the reading comprehension of a five year-old, that it is _not_ appropriate to label it as an error. Nor is it appropriate to make the selection dependent on the order in which you pick the items (Order dependent operation is a classic example of bug ridden code.) What's further been demonstrated by this thread is that you have absolutely _no_ grasp of logic. Your claim that something exists thatis called "loose logic" is so incredibly laughable that it's painfully obvious that you're highest level of education can be no greater than high school at the best. It's just too bad that the maintainers of the datafiles think that their own, idiotic, interpretation of the rules needs to trump what the rules actually state. That's to be expected, however, when one of the current maintainers is that beacon of ineptitude named Ghaz, and when Stelek, that useless gak who can't do anything but pretend that his insults are arguments has admitted to being a previous maintainer. The current armyfile maintainers are clearly incompetent, and need to be replaced with people who are responsive to the community, not to themselves.

Your insults and attacks are completely against Rule #1 here at Dakka. You can definitely read them all here

Failure to adhere to the rules here at Dakka can result in temporary suspensions and eventually a ban.

And to jlong05, I appreciate your calm and thought out response to the offending post.

Reply by: stonefox - click to view full reply 

844

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 14:24:27

Post by: stonefox

Ha, I hate to get into YMDC debates but Spack's pretty much said what I was going to say. Given the way GW writes its rules, which may not agree with formal logic, the only reason they ever say "may" is because if they said "must" there'd be no point in writing the option in the first place. GW tends to write "up to x number of models may replace..." if they want to give you anything but an either-or option.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 21:27:28

Post by: Nurglitch

Spack wrote:Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Sure it does, if that model is not part of the "entire mob" in question, then ignoring that model as irrelevant is correct. The term "entire mob" is qualified by the possession of "sluggas and choppas". The entire phrase used for the option is simply the generalization of the construction "up to x models may exchange y for z", and taking terms out of their context naturally yields the wrong information.

stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.

Reply by: akira5665 - click to view full reply 

4892

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 21:38:26

Post by: akira5665

Nurglitch-stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.

But do they conform to the rules of ambiguity? RAI vs RAW. Where did those expressions come from?

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 22:06:39

Post by: jlong05

Nurglitch wrote:

Spack wrote:Ignoring one model does not fulfill the requirement of "all the parts", or the complete mob, does it?

Sure it does, if that model is not part of the "entire mob" in question, then ignoring that model as irrelevant is correct. The term "entire mob" is qualified by the possession of "sluggas and choppas". The entire phrase used for the option is simply the generalization of the construction "up to x models may exchange y for z", and taking terms out of their context naturally yields the wrong information.

stonefox: The way that GW writes its rules conforms to the rules of English grammar, which is good enough to find out what logical information they are expressing.

So I guess a correct way to have written the rule then would have been.

All Ork Boyz may replace their Choppa/Slugga with Shootas at xx cost.
Nob may replace his Choppa with a Big Choppa or PowerKlaw for xx cost.

I still maintain that the wording of the rule requires the player to make an assumption of what Entire means. Entire to me, and others it seems, is that it is the Entire Mob (As it says 'Entire Mob' in the rule) regardless of equipment. This follows with a strict interretation of the wording which in the past has been the view of GW in other RAW discussions. If the meaning should have been non-inclusive of the Nob, then the rule should have been clear to seperate him from that context. As the rule indicates Mob and not just Boyz, I do not think the interpretation you have made is 100% valid.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 22:21:58

Post by: Nurglitch

No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

Reply by: MagickalMemories - click to view full reply 

3197

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 22:43:41

Post by: MagickalMemories

Nurglitch wrote:No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

First:
I read the paper you linked to... Well, about the first 20 or so points.
Eventually, I just got disgusted with it and stopped.
It reads to me as a manual on how to make sentences say what they don't say (the "cream or sugar," example is dead wrong and assumes intent that the listener doesn't know the speaker has).

As for your example above, it lacks limitations provided by the Codex for orks.
If there is a basket of green apples and the sentence is "All of the green apples in that basket may be exchanged for oranges," then the sentence does, indeed, refer to the apples in their entirety. Thus, "all." It does not say "any," which would, indeed, indicate that a choice may be made.

Nurglitch, though I do not agree with your reasoning, I absolutely agree with your opinion of what they meant. Unfortunately, however, the limiting vocabulary in the rulebook does not support your particular reasoning, regardless of how you attempt to twist meanings and/or infer things unsaid.

Eric

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/20 22:58:19

Post by: Nurglitch

That's a rather odd thing to say, because I have no opinion of what the writers may or may not have meant when they wrote Codex: Orks. I am simply pointing out what it says. Likewise Suber's point about the use of 'or' in English is true, that word can be used as either inclusive or exclusive, and you'll need more than the word 'or' to know which is which.

By all means, please, show us how we should read it.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 00:33:19

Post by: jlong05

Nurglitch wrote:No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...).

I think it is interesting that you are qualifying the poorly written rule by saying that GW has a limited or finite space which which to work to present the rules for their game. This is crazy as it is their game and they choose what to include and not include. It is much more likely that the issues of the PK was never thought as the RAI is that they should be allowed and it was assumed the wording was correct, but in hindsight it should be seen now that the wording in inconclusive and at minimum they should be providing a FAQ update on the website where the space for the rules is more available.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 01:40:23

Post by: Nurglitch

Except I don't think it's a poorly written rule. It is, as I said, not limited by the space available for its expression. I would challenge people to convey the same information more concisely in the space available.* The phrasing is entirely conclusive, should you wish to sit down with a grammar and a dictionary and work it out (or, you know, show I've made a mistake somewhere and it is conclusively something else).

GW doesn't need to release an FAQ. Anyone with a dictionary, a grammar, and the education to combine the two can figure out what GW means.

*Incidentally, para-phrasing a sentence is part of Peter Suber's advice for symbolically modeling rules and arguments.

Reply by: yakface - click to view full reply 

60

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 01:54:34

Post by: yakface

Nurglitch wrote:Except I don't think it's a poorly written rule. It is, as I said, not limited by the space available for its expression. I would challenge people to convey the same information more concisely in the space available.* The phrasing is entirely conclusive, should you wish to sit down with a grammar and a dictionary and work it out (or, you know, show I've made a mistake somewhere and it is conclusively something else).

GW doesn't need to release an FAQ. Anyone with a dictionary, a grammar, and the education to combine the two can figure out what GW means.

*Incidentally, para-phrasing a sentence is part of Peter Suber's advice for symbolically modeling rules and arguments.

At the very least GW should release a FAQ ruling on this subject because their army list examples include Shoota mobs that have Nobs with a Slugga and Choppa, something clearly not allowed by the rules. That sure throws up a red flag that the wording of the unit entry is probably not what the writer believed he wrote.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 02:24:19

Post by: Nurglitch

Perhaps, perhaps not. Note that the unit Options and the Character options are in separate lists for unit entries. Moreover certain specific options like Painboyz have their own lists. In the Stormboyz entry, for example, there is a list for Character options and a list for Boss Zagstruk (consisting of...Boss Zagstruk). It seems like it would actually be against the rules for a Nob to have a shoota, so the sample army lists on the GW site are perfectly valid, and would actually be invalid had the Nobz been armed with shootas.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 03:12:24

Post by: jlong05

Nurglitch wrote:Perhaps, perhaps not. Note that the unit Options and the Character options are in separate lists for unit entries. Moreover certain specific options like Painboyz have their own lists. In the Stormboyz entry, for example, there is a list for Character options and a list for Boss Zagstruk (consisting of...Boss Zagstruk). It seems like it would actually be against the rules for a Nob to have a shoota, so the sample army lists on the GW site are perfectly valid, and would actually be invalid had the Nobz been armed with shootas.

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas? There is nothing in the rules that indicate the base weaponry to be specific for Nobs, and the rules DO indicate that the Entire Mob may exchange their Choppas/Sluggas for Shootas. Are you now determining that the NOB is not a part of the Mob as a whole then?

This is the crux of the issue as the Nob IS in fact part of the Mob as a whole and Should always be included as a member for rules indicating the Mob as a whole.

Reply by: Blackheart666 - click to view full reply 

4893

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 03:16:29

Post by: Blackheart666

I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

Thanks for your time and I now return you to "When Rules Boyz Attack!!!"

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 03:27:56

Post by: jlong05

Blackheart666 wrote:I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

Thanks for your time and I now return you to "When Rules Boyz Attack!!!"

Hey, Wait, How did you know what I wear for shoes. I agree, this thread has gone on a bit. It's probably best to just ignore it from now on. It's just soooo tempting to read it again.

Reply by: Nurglitch - click to view full reply 

4003

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 03:33:34

Post by: Nurglitch

jlong05: I'm not voicing an opinion either way (although I am inclined to go with what's written in the Codex). I'm pointing out what's printed in Codex: Orks as it relates to the sample lists mentioned by Yakface.

The 'crux of the issue' is not that the Nob is part of the unit, as that's pretty obvious. The 'crux of the issue' is whether "The entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" means the same thing as (1) "All models in the mob with sluggas and choppas may all replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas" or (2) "If all models in the mob have sluggas and choppas, then they may all replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas"

If (1) is not a lossy paraphrase of the option, then its combination with a Nob option replacing either the Nob's choppa with either a power klaw or a big choppa is permissible.

If (2) is not a lossy paraphrase of the option, then its combination with a Nob option replacing the Nob's choppa with either a power klaw or a big choppa is not permissible.

However (1) & (2) mean different things, and hence allow different states of affairs. If the option is a grammatically well-formed sentence, then both cannot be accurate paraphrases.

The facts are that the option is a grammatically well-formed sentence, that (1) is the accurate paraphrase, and as a result we know that a Nob can have either a big choppa or a power klaw if the entire mob replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas.

Whether a Nob can have a choppa and a slugga in a unit otherwise equipped with shootas, now there's a question that can't be solved by close reading (good eye, Yakface).

Reply by: Fyrebyrd - click to view full reply 

6453

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 03:36:56

Post by: Fyrebyrd

This is funny as heck...

Blackheart666 wrote:I just want to take a quick moment from this latest edition of " Arguing GW On Teh Intarwebz" to point out that this thread is the current example that I'm using to explain to the local Warhammer players that 99% of Warhammer players are, in fact, Clown Shoes.

ROFL, that sums this whole thread up in one medium sized sentence.

This discussion is like a vehicle accident in progress,
You wanna look away, but can't as its way too interesting...

If anyone needs me, I'll be failing to attempt to not watch this discussion.

Reply by: akira5665 - click to view full reply 

4892

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 13:00:38

Post by: akira5665

Nurglitch-No, the phrasing that GW used is fine for the space they have to work with (I suspect that some people forget GW's rules writing is constrained by formatting...). It requires no assumptions on the part of the player about what the term "entire mob" refers to because it qualifies that term with two other conditions, "sluggas and choppas". If the Nob does not have a slugga and a choppa then the reference does not include the Nob, and it's clear because the three conditions that the Nob may or may not meet are written right there in black and write (member of the mob, choppa, slugga). As the rule indicates all those members of the mob armed with sluggas and choppas, the 'interpretation' I have made (and that should be made) is 100% valid and true. It is sound.

It may help to think about it as the meaning of the sentence rather than its individual terms. As Peter Suber reminds us the universal quantifier is relative to whatever properties it quantifies over. If I say: "All green apples..." and my universe includes green apples, then do I mean all of the green apples in my universe? I may or may not, depending on how the rest of the sentence qualifies the clause "All green apples..."

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems", then such a sentence would not refer to all green apples in the universe, just the subset of green apples with leaves on their stems if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc..

If it ends "...may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence could refer to all green apples in the universe if information in that sentence was not qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

If it ends "...with leaves on their stems may be exchanged for oranges", then such a sentence would refer to only those green apples with leaves on their stems and oranges, and then only those broad categories if not further qualified by a sentence in the same paragraph, section, etc.

Crikey, I have an Army Idea....



My new "Green Horde Army, in carry-case......

Reply by: Meep357 - click to view full reply 

2690

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 13:02:16

Post by: Meep357

And which army builder file do I need to field this army legally?

*edit* spelling

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 13:42:22

Post by: Redbeard

jlong05 wrote:

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas?

Well, if you follow GW's new design logic, that the rules should follow the models, and that the box provides all the parts to make all the legal squad options, and you examine the contents of the new Boyz box, this sentence makes a lot of sense. It's actually impossible to make a nob with a shoota out of the new box, your only options ade slugga + (big choppa/powerklaw/choppa). The shoota arms simply don't work on the nob body.

That's not how the rules are worded, obviously, but you try getting a nob with a shoota model.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 13:55:37

Post by: jlong05

Redbeard wrote:

jlong05 wrote:

So in your opinion, The Nob 'should' have access to Big Choppas and PKs all the time and that they CAN NEVER be armed with regular Shootas?

Well, if you follow GW's new design logic, that the rules should follow the models, and that the box provides all the parts to make all the legal squad options, and you examine the contents of the new Boyz box, this sentence makes a lot of sense. It's actually impossible to make a nob with a shoota out of the new box, your only options ade slugga + (big choppa/powerklaw/choppa). The shoota arms simply don't work on the nob body.

That's not how the rules are worded, obviously, but you try getting a nob with a shoota model.

It's called converting. You simply clip the shoota from a boyz arms and then add it to the Nob. Now, I realize this is obvious, in no way am I making light of your statement. My point here is that the options are there, just not as a specific molded one. Also, GW has many options for units that are not available as part of the purchased model that must be addapted. Case in point, I highly doubt that the new(upcoming) plastic Warboss will include every posisble option he has; including runts, squigs, warbike with rider legs, and both regular, 'eavy armour, and mega armour body options. I have no proof of this, but by your statement, GW is now expected to include all options and here is clearly an example of that not likely to be so.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 13:57:07

Post by: jlong05

akira5665 wrote:Crikey, I have an Army Idea....



My new "Green Horde Army, in carry-case......

That would be legal, if GW grew the green apples. Hey, No leaves on the stems though. I guess no upgrades.

Reply by: yamato - click to view full reply 

6173

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 14:59:58

Post by: yamato

OK,

I have scanned over most of these seven pages; so I hope that I have not missed this.

1) Regarding the data file. My file (downloaded from the maintainers) allows PK nobs in the shoota mobs.

My data file was downloaded from the AB40k site prior to it's general availability on the main site, so I may have gotten an early release build before a few tweaks and changes were made??????

2) As the maintainers have used this argument in their responses in the past: "what is there that says that you have to upgrade "x" before doing "y"." I feel that they should have allowed this.

What is there in the RAW that says that you must upgrade your mob prior to upgrading the nob? If you upgrade one of your orks to a nob, and then give him a PK,..... then upgrade the mob: "the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas." Well since the nob no longer has a choppa,... he can not make this exchange.

Reply by: jlong05 - click to view full reply 

1316

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 16:04:30

Post by: jlong05

yamato wrote:OK,

I have scanned over most of these seven pages; so I hope that I have not missed this.

1) Regarding the data file. My file (downloaded from the maintainers) allows PK nobs in the shoota mobs.

My data file was downloaded from the AB40k site prior to it's general availability on the main site, so I may have gotten an early release build before a few tweaks and changes were made??????

2) As the maintainers have used this argument in their responses in the past: "what is there that says that you have to upgrade "x" before doing "y"." I feel that they should have allowed this.

What is there in the RAW that says that you must upgrade your mob prior to upgrading the nob? If you upgrade one of your orks to a nob, and then give him a PK,..... then upgrade the mob: "the entire mob may replace their sluggas and choppas with shootas." Well since the nob no longer has a choppa,... he can not make this exchange.

This has been gone over, as you said in the last 7 pages of this thread. Its ambigious in the rules and it's open to interpretation. One group which includes the datafile maintainers, vies Entire mob as inclusive of the Nob and as such must include him. As you said, if has been upgraded and traded weapons he can't be included so no Shootas are allowed. The other group is stating a view such as yourself which says that the Nob would just not get included in the trade, but that shouldn't stop the rest.

This is a FAQ issue and will be resolved for everyone when that happens. At GW's current speed of releasing FAQs for their codex armies, I expect the FAQ around 2010.

Reply by: Lorek - click to view full reply 

171

Army Builder datafile that allows shoota boy nobs to have powerklaws @ 2008/03/21 17:11:29

Post by: Lorek

I think we've sufficiently covered the topic, and there's been more than a bit of nastiness.

Thread locked.