Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/25 11:51:20


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


For the past 4 months we have been developing an online army builder called Army Roster. This new website will be going live for Beta testing on the 31st of October.

What is it?
Army Roster(as you may have guessed) is a tool for all Warhammer players to build their armies online for free. The only thing you will need to accomplish a well made army list is the Armies Book of your race! As Army Roster has very little constraints on what you can do with your army you will need to validate them yourself with your own Armies Codex.

What armies are available?
For our Beta launch we will have every WHFB army in the database. All of the current 7th edition armies and all of the other 6th edition armies which have not yet been updated by GW. We plan on eventually adding the other games of GW as well as more editions of WHFB and 40K, but this first run is to see just how well Army Roster is received by the Warhammer community... AKA you guys

What does it cost?
NOTHING! Every function of Army Roster will be free to use with slight restrictions on allowance, although there will be a sponsorship option for those devoted fans. Buying a very low priced Sponsorship will gain you many different benefits which will be explained in greater length during Beta.

Do we need help?
As a matter of fact yes! If you would like to become an Army Roster Moderator then please drop Benny (AR founder) a line at:

benny@armyroster.com

Give a few reasons why you think you would make a good Moderator for Army Roster and maybe some reference if you really feel up to it.

All Army Roster Moderators will get a free Sponsorship account.

Final thoughts?
If you guys think Army Roster is worth your time then please check it out. Please refrain from sending hate mail or non constructive criticisms, we don't need them.

On the other hand if you wish to be a part of the Army Roster evolution please do not be afraid to use our suggestion messaging system for anything you think we are missing!

Thanks for your attention guys. See you on the battlefield!

The ArmyRoster.com team


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 14:18:15


Post by: frgsinwntr


I hope you don't get sued : )


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 15:02:32


Post by: Amen Brick


wish it did 40k..


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 15:07:05


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


watch out for GWs closet full of Ninja-lawyers!!!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 18:41:50


Post by: DeathGod


/shock
/gasp
/outrage

How DARE Games Workshop protect their IPs in this increasingly competitive environment! FOR SHAME!

/end sarcasm


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 19:29:10


Post by: groz


Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
GW LAW DEPT: How are you gentlemen !!
GW LAW DEPT: All your base are belong to us.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 19:35:36


Post by: George Spiggott


How would this differ from say Armybuilder from a legal perspective?

@Armyroster.com Are you planning to expand this to other games such as FoW?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 20:23:22


Post by: MagickalMemories


George Spiggott wrote:How would this differ from say Armybuilder from a legal perspective?


Lone Wolf, the company that makes AB, does not support ANY game system. All the files are user generated by volunteers who receive no compensation for their efforts.

This site, on the other hand, seems to host all of the info within itself and, as of right now, seems to be marketed specifically towards ONE GAME.

It's just a matter of time, really...



Eric


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 20:24:43


Post by: malfred


I've always wondered about army builder and how other sites can get away with hosting
the user created content.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 21:15:20


Post by: George Spiggott


MagickalMemories wrote:Lone Wolf, the company that makes AB, does not support ANY game system. All the files are user generated by volunteers who receive no compensation for their efforts.

This site, on the other hand, seems to host all of the info within itself and, as of right now, seems to be marketed specifically towards ONE GAME.

There's no indication of compensation here and I don't see how the material being outsourced makes any difference, it's still available to the end user through the Armybuilder program. I don't see how only using copyright material of only one company has any bearing either.

Similar distancing between provider and content hasn't helped torrent sites.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/27 21:42:00


Post by: Stelek


If you can pay (and you can) then you get more. That makes it different by far from the AB files, which get a free pass.

This? Well, C&D letters aren't fun. Hope you enjoy yours.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/28 09:55:49


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Hi guys,

Benny here (Creator). I understand where all of you pesmistic people are coming from so let me try and put my point of view to ya.

Do any of you remember "TheGreatUncleanOne.com"? My friend Matt had that site up and working for 4 years and the only reason it went down was because he did not have time to run it anymore. Now, on his site there was loads more copyrighted material such as magic item descriptions and rules... Army Roster does not contain any magic item, unit, or army special rules. You MUST have an armies book to use it effectively.

As for the pricing and what not. You do not have to spend any money to use Army Roster. Army Builder on the other had requires you to buy a license before you can make a full army list. The Army Roster sponsorship is not mandatory and very minimal anyways. As said in the advert up top, you can use EVERY function of Army Roster for free.

Other benefits of AR over AB is the fact that our forums have a system implemented to allow you to add your army lists to new threads for review from the others in the community.

I am currently in contact with GW about legal issues and will let you all know how it goes. If you have anymore questions just post em below

@Amen Brick : we will eventually have 40k mon ami

@George Spiggott : As of right now just focusing on GW, but it could go to other games! who knows?!

Benny

PS by the by, I am doing this for the Warhammer community (you guys) so those negative sarcastic remarks aren't helping anybody.



ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/28 12:49:59


Post by: GrimTeef


Good luck to you Benny! I hope that this goes well for you guys at your site, so you can concentrate on getting 40k files up and running!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/28 13:21:51


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Thank you Grim. I must say, the support for adding a 40K section to the website is HUGE. I have gotten at least 40 queries about adding 40k so as of right now the reality of getting 40k on there may happen a lot sooner than I had anticipated.

If this scheduling is pushed ahead I may start look for people to start sending me army details for the builder.... will keep you all updated.

Benny


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/28 13:58:00


Post by: Lormax


Consider it 41 queries to get 40k on the site



ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/28 17:11:08


Post by: Ozymandias


Good luck with everything. Don't let the haterz get you down. People like to poo-poo everything around here.

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 02:43:45


Post by: H.B.M.C.


And there are just as many GW sycophants as there are GW 'haterz' here Ozzy.

BYE


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 05:56:53


Post by: blinky


ArmyRoster.com wrote:Hi guys,
I am doing this for the Warhammer community (you guys) so those negative sarcastic remarks aren't helping anybody.


I think that the negative comments arent directed against the website, as much as warning you that there may be some issues. Personally I think that you shouldnt run into too much IP issues, as long as you do not force people to pay, like you say.

Regardless of any issues, best of luck for the website and I can't wait for a 40k version.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 12:50:03


Post by: malfred


ArmyRoster.com wrote:For the past 4 months we have been developing an online army builder called Army Roster. This new website will be going live for Beta testing on the 31st of October.

What is it?
Army Roster(as you may have guessed) is a tool for all Warhammer players to build their armies online for free. The only thing you will need to accomplish a well made army list is the Armies Book of your race! As Army Roster has very little constraints on what you can do with your army you will need to validate them yourself with your own Armies Codex.

What armies are available?
For our Beta launch we will have every WHFB army in the database. All of the current 7th edition armies and all of the other 6th edition armies which have not yet been updated by GW. We plan on eventually adding the other games of GW as well as more editions of WHFB and 40K, but this first run is to see just how well Army Roster is received by the Warhammer community... AKA you guys

What does it cost?
NOTHING! Every function of Army Roster will be free to use with slight restrictions on allowance, although there will be a sponsorship option for those devoted fans. Buying a very low priced Sponsorship will gain you many different benefits which will be explained in greater length during Beta.

Do we need help?
As a matter of fact yes! If you would like to become an Army Roster Moderator then please drop Benny (AR founder) a line at:

benny@armyroster.com

Give a few reasons why you think you would make a good Moderator for Army Roster and maybe some reference if you really feel up to it.

All Army Roster Moderators will get a free Sponsorship account.

Final thoughts?
If you guys think Army Roster is worth your time then please check it out. Please refrain from sending hate mail or non constructive criticisms, we don't need them.

On the other hand if you wish to be a part of the Army Roster evolution please do not be afraid to use our suggestion messaging system for anything you think we are missing!

Thanks for your attention guys. See you on the battlefield!

The ArmyRoster.com team


Here is a question I'd be interested in you adding to the FAQ:

How are you able to do this?

Not trying to be confrontational. I'm curious about the how. Do you have some sort
of agreement as a fansite? How does this jive with GW when GW once tried to do their
own kind of army building program?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 13:22:17


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Did you ever use TGUO?. That site was up and running for 4 years with the OK from GW. My friend Matt (TGUO owner) closed it down for lack of time on his hands. Army Roster is NOT a full fledged army book. You must have the army book of your selected race to make a legal list. There are not many limits on some things and NO limits on others, There are no special rule descriptions of any kind on the website. Essentially AR is just supplying a way for you to take what you normally write down and have it created and saved electronically. There is also a printable view of your army which allows you to take all of your created armies with you.

I am in contact with GW right now and I do not foresee any IP issues.

Benny


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 13:28:27


Post by: malfred


Never used it before, so that clears things up, thanks.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 13:33:18


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


No problem glad to clear things up.

ATTN all: Progress for the Beta is moving ahead steadily. By the looks of it less things will be ready than I had initially anticipated but the forums and the army builder will both be working (most of the army lists will be up and the remaining ones will be added within a day or two) I will be working frantically on friday to make sure everything launches smoothly.

I am scheduling the Beta launch for 12pm GMT - Friday October 31st 2008

I hope you all come and check it out!

Benny

PS Please guys during the launch, use the forums to report any bugs you find. The early parts of this beta are just to get everything working and to stress test.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 13:52:16


Post by: Fishboy


Not trying to discourage you and I wish you well but....

Army Roster does not contain any magic item, unit, or army special rules.


This is how army builder is able to do it. They dont get sued because they do not have rules posted and you NEED to buy the army books for the list to make any sense.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 16:40:12


Post by: Ozymandias


H.B.M.C. wrote:And there are just as many GW sycophants as there are GW 'haterz' here Ozzy.

BYE


I didn't say anything about GW.

And don't simplify, I will call GW out when I feel its necessary (for example, the new SM codex vs. the DA dex) just as you will point out the things they do well (like terrain).

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 17:37:37


Post by: mlund


Well, The Star Wars Miniatures Shoebox does something very similar for Star Wars Miniatures and the lawyers from Hasbro and Lucasfilm are usually very hardcore IP defenders.

Heroforge does something even more elaborate for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Edition without invoking the OGL or bringing down the wrath of IP lawyers.

Of course, those products are made by U.S. companies. I've been lead to believe that the U.K. has some "interesting" laws regarding the IP of companies that pay U.K. taxes that other nations might find unreasonable, but must otherwise abide due to treaty negotiations. The concept of "Fair Use," doesn't go nearly as far with G.W. as it seems to go for most companies.



ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/29 17:59:07


Post by: Gavin Thorne


Heroscapers, the Heroscape codex, and several other sites perform similar functions for that game as well, without Hasbro breathing down their necks. Actually, they've gotten pretty good support from the develoeprs of the game.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 11:49:50


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


ArmyRoster.com will be going live in 10 minutes (so by the time most of you read this it will be live). Please give it a go and leave some feedback either here or on the feedback section of the site. All C+C will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

The ArmyRoster.com team.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 12:08:30


Post by: Sicarius


So it's live now right?
EDIT: Oh, I thought it was for 40k too. Whoops. Still, it's an awesome idea


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 13:08:24


Post by: RanTheCid


Do you have a direct link to the roster maker? The home page only has links to the forum.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 13:22:36


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


You have to register and login to use the army builder. Also the control panel menus will not work with IE6 or before you must have IE7. it will work in several other editions of the other popular browesers


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 13:53:26


Post by: Necros


Hey .. looks good so far

I'm trying to make a tomb kings army. I created the list, then I went to list overview and clicked edit. There\'s no units listed. I see the drop down box for heroes, core, etc... but there's nothing to select. If I click the add unit button, nothing happens. Am I missing something? Or do you guys still just have to add the data files for it? How do I add units?

I'm using a mac with safari. I tried using firefox too. I thought maybe there was a layer I didn't see or something like that.

Also one other little nitpicky thing I noticed, when I registered.. I entered the city wrong and I got the error screen telling me so... but then it deleted everything I entered and I had to type it all over again. Kinda annoying so maybe you can change that to be a javascript popup / alert or something like that.. or if it has to reload the screen maybe make it remember everything else that you entered.

Lastly, I wasn't able to post this on your message board I got this error:

- The thread name must be at least 4 characters and may contain the following : _ , . , ' , - , ! , and commas.


I think I had more than 4 characters


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 14:09:04


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


hmmmm that is rather interesting... I think can answer your questions...

The first is: yes we still have to enter the rest of the data, only the 3 armies that are listed on the site work at the moment.

The registration form SHOULD refil the detail and its probably an error due to me changing some variable names a while ago - I will look into it and fix it!

The last problem baffles me as others seem to be able to post on the forums... try again perhaps?

Benny


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 14:27:05


Post by: Necros


Yeah I tried again with Empire and it seems to work now

The printable version doesn't work but I saw that on the boards... when it does work, will you have items and rules on there, the way army builder does it? one thing I like about AB is your list is also a cheat sheet with weapon stats and everything else ... or is that what you meant when you said you need the army book to use army roster?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 14:48:14


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Yeah you techinically cannot make a legal list with Army Roster unless you have the army book... you can certainly use it, but you have no way of verifying whether your list is legal or not

and yes the printable version will have unit rules, and equipment on there.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 16:24:45


Post by: Ozymandias


I just made my first list with ArmyRoster. Works well, he's right that unless you have your army book memorized you need your book. It takes longer to make a list than using Army Builder but it's free and faster than doing it by hand.

Plus it's online so I can do it at work....

4.5 stars out of 5!

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 16:27:38


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Thanks Ozymandias! Yeah I was kinda shooting for a medium between the two... eventually when the community gets going another benefit will be the "add your army list to a thread" feature which is working now by the by, but not many army lists online at the moment!

Thanks again for the 4.5

Benny


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 16:31:50


Post by: Ozymandias


Well, the .5 was for it being just a bit "click heavy". Overall, that's minor, but that's why its a .5 off rather than a 1 off... :p

Now I can't wait for the 40k part to start up.

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 16:48:28


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


haha Im not concerned with the .5 at all. So far AR seems to have been accepted rather well... Im glad.

Lots of good users already reporting bugs and such


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 17:19:08


Post by: Ozymandias


Any word when all of the armies will be complete? I see that Wood Elves are missing all of the upgrades and stuff.

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 17:50:42


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Yeah a lot of the armies have the units plugged in but not the options...

you see the way my Back-End is setup each unit option is linked to a bunch of other "Options" tables. Essentially I have to enter a couple hundred records just for one army . To answer your question: ALL of the armies will be working by next weekend. they would be done a lot sooner if I did not have a life hehe

Benny


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 19:17:00


Post by: Viperion


Looks good so far but:

1) Detachments (Empire, obviously). I can't see how to add them

2) I created a Hand Gunner Unit, selected a Marksman and gave him a Hochland Long Rifle. So far so good. Clicked on the unit name in the army summary page, and then clicked on "Complete Edit" - the Marksman lost his special weapon (it doesn't appear on the edit screen).

3) I run my monitor in 1024x768 and I am stuck with a horizontal scroll bar. Eww

Viperion


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 19:30:12


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Eeek I really anticipate everyone to at least run there resolutions bigger than that. detachments will be added soon, I will look into the marksman thing


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 19:57:22


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


fixed the hand gunner bud


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/10/31 21:53:35


Post by: Viperion


ArmyRoster.com wrote:Eeek I really anticipate everyone to at least run there resolutions bigger than that. detachments will be added soon, I will look into the marksman thing

fixed the hand gunner bud

Great work on the quick fix

I know of people (neanderthals that they are lol) that still run in 800x600 so you may need to look into it.

As a former programmer (not in Java though) I appreciate all the hard work it's going to be to make detachments work - they really do format weirdly compared to everything else in the WH world

Looking good!

Viperion

Edit: Also taking a Warrior Priest doesn't allow you to take a unit of Flagellents as core - although this isn't a huge problem, it means you could have a legal list that your program thinks is one core unit too few and one rare unit too many. I'm assuming this is the kind of thing you won't even look at fixing though - it kinda comes under the "army book" thing, but it would be nice since the program is tracking how many of each type of unit (core, special, rare) you have in the list. Even if you have a checkmark in the Flagellant screen to say "Take as core (only if you have Warrior Priest)" that would suffice.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/01 03:11:46


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


I will stick a flagellant option on there as core as well as rare


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/01 17:31:37


Post by: bbb


i'm pretty excited about the site. i LOVED The Great Unclean One, so i'm looking forward to being able to make lists on the fly and access them from anywhere.

i registered with the username: bbb, but it doesn't seem to let me log in yet even though i clicked the link in the email. is there a delay or another glitch?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/01 18:44:43


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


in the database Im seeing you as activated lol... try to login again!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/01 23:42:24


Post by: bbb


ArmyRoster.com wrote:in the database Im seeing you as activated lol... try to login again!


tried a few times. every time i try to log in i get the following error: Please enter a valid username


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/02 00:57:37


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Problem sorted! Little error in the RegEx stuff requiring 4 letters instead of 3 for the minimum should be working good now!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/11/02 03:17:24


Post by: bbb


ArmyRoster.com wrote:Problem sorted! Little error in the RegEx stuff requiring 4 letters instead of 3 for the minimum should be working good now!


WOO!!! i help fix a bug!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2100/07/02 22:32:59


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Yes you did! very important bug too. Hope you like the site!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/01 16:06:12


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


*BUMP* Lots of new updates guys! Check it out!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/04 13:53:09


Post by: malfred


Hey, I registered and made a High Elf list.

The High Elves have different values for their Core Special and Rare, so you might
want to look into that.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/04 14:21:28


Post by: mercer


Is this for 40k or just fantasy?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/04 17:02:50


Post by: dodgex1


No fluid width for 1024x768 in FF or IE7+? No scalability for 800x600 I can understand, but cutting off 1024 is a bit rash isn't it?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 02:18:53


Post by: malfred


mercer wrote:Is this for 40k or just fantasy?


So far just Fantasy.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 08:06:36


Post by: yakface



When they get 40k up and rolling I will be all over this like white-on-rice.



ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 10:50:45


Post by: Vash1313


Incredibly good site. Keep up the good work. As a Mac user, this is the alternative I have been waiting for.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 11:18:18


Post by: sphynx


i like it, now i dont need to buy codice for armies i think i might collect...


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 11:44:42


Post by: malfred


sphynx wrote:i like it, now i dont need to buy codice for armies i think i might collect...


Oh give it up. You want the books anyway.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 12:54:39


Post by: Arctik_Firangi


ArmyRoster.com wrote:Eeek I really anticipate everyone to at least run there resolutions bigger than that. detachments will be added soon, I will look into the marksman thing


Never expect more than 800x600. And don't forget about netbooks!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 14:08:47


Post by: malfred


Yeah, this is really helpful for looking at at work, but I see a future where
everyone will have those tiny Dells at work. That would be bad.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 14:10:16


Post by: P4NC4K3


I think Ill give all this a miss and just keep using Microsoft Excel


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 14:14:33


Post by: malfred


How come?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 14:32:44


Post by: Lorek


yakface wrote:
When they get 40k up and rolling I will be all over this like white-on-rice.



Yakface, there has been a report that you've been stealing Malfred's rice.

If true, this is a serious accusation. (I'm not kidding! Check the User Post Alerts!).


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 16:47:29


Post by: jamsessionein


This is interesting.

I'd like for this to succeed, I truly would. However, I'm currently in the course of an education in law school, and accordingly I'm 100% positive you're in violation of intellectual property laws.

The argument that you need the army's book to put together a game-legal army is not going to hold water when you are providing literally 90% of the input from the site itself. It's like saying I need a DVD player to make bootleg/pirated DVDs work: yes, this is true, but bootleg DVDs are still violating intellectual property, and illegal. In Army Builder's case, the program that gets sold to you is more analogous to the DVD player than the bootleg DVD, because it requires additional input from outside the application to function. The fact that you incorporate all of Games Workshop's unit names, stats, and even go as far as using art from the codicies from the unit entries means that you're pretty clearly using their intellectual property.

The 'book' defense you guys have advocated in this thread will probably keep you safe from a tort suit on the grounds of interference with economic advantage, since a user will have to have the codex to know what the wargear is and how the army needs to be arranged. Because of that, you're not impeding GW's sales of their codex. You could argue that they have a case for interference because they have a similar army building product of their own, but I don't think it'd go anywhere because they have to prove damages and I don't know anyone who buys their program. This does not, however, serve as a legal defense against an intellectual property suit.

In any event, good luck. I've bought a copy of Army Builder for this year, so I'll probably continue to use that, but the concept's solid in terms of function.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 19:02:12


Post by: malfred


Don't bother Lorek. The Frazz put me in my place :(

Jamsession: Did they ever do one for Fantasy? I thought they only had 40k.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/07 21:44:46


Post by: jamsessionein


malfred wrote:Don't bother Lorek. The Frazz put me in my place :(

Jamsession: Did they ever do one for Fantasy? I thought they only had 40k.


I just kind've assumed they did, honestly. I'm not a fantasy player. Looking at it, they probably haven't made one for Fantasy, or if they have I'm sure it's just as bad as the 40k version. In any event, the reference to their program was more with regards to a tort claim of interference with economic advantage; the existence (or nonexistence) of an army-building program for Fantasy does not impede an intellectual property suit, because IP suits don't universally require proof of damages.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 00:50:01


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


jamsessionein wrote:This is interesting.

I'd like for this to succeed, I truly would. However, I'm currently in the course of an education in law school, and accordingly I'm 100% positive you're in violation of intellectual property laws.

The argument that you need the army's book to put together a game-legal army is not going to hold water when you are providing literally 90% of the input from the site itself. It's like saying I need a DVD player to make bootleg/pirated DVDs work: yes, this is true, but bootleg DVDs are still violating intellectual property, and illegal. In Army Builder's case, the program that gets sold to you is more analogous to the DVD player than the bootleg DVD, because it requires additional input from outside the application to function. The fact that you incorporate all of Games Workshop's unit names, stats, and even go as far as using art from the codicies from the unit entries means that you're pretty clearly using their intellectual property.

The 'book' defense you guys have advocated in this thread will probably keep you safe from a tort suit on the grounds of interference with economic advantage, since a user will have to have the codex to know what the wargear is and how the army needs to be arranged. Because of that, you're not impeding GW's sales of their codex. You could argue that they have a case for interference because they have a similar army building product of their own, but I don't think it'd go anywhere because they have to prove damages and I don't know anyone who buys their program. This does not, however, serve as a legal defense against an intellectual property suit.

In any event, good luck. I've bought a copy of Army Builder for this year, so I'll probably continue to use that, but the concept's solid in terms of function.


Hey there,

Benny here... Just thought I would let you know that we are not the pirated DVD... we are the DVD player in your analogy... something like a scanned book from a torrent would be your equivalent of a bootlegged DVD... sooooo you are wrong in that one.

On another note, I have been notified by another individual who has been actively contacting GW that they do not have an issue with AR as I do NOT validate the army lists and therefore it is possible to make illegal compositions and that this is just a tool, not a replacement for the army books.

I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.

Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...

Anyways. I hope the rest of you are enjoying it. I am trying to get it bug free as soon as possible. As soon as everything is solid I will be adding 40k... Im giving you all a rough estimate of the start up date for 40k... and I'm thinking Beta will start mid Jan! If everything goes smoothly!

Cheers

Benny
AR




ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 01:28:15


Post by: jamsessionein


ArmyRoster.com wrote:
Hey there,

Benny here... Just thought I would let you know that we are not the pirated DVD... we are the DVD player in your analogy... something like a scanned book from a torrent would be your equivalent of a bootlegged DVD... sooooo you are wrong in that one.


A program like Army Builder is, as I mentioned in my post, more analogous to the DVD player, in that it only receives the input given, and does not possess any intellectual property in and of itself. The moment you start reproducing GW's IP content, such as stat lines, unit names, and points values, you cross that line [provided permission has not been expressly given by GW]. There is obviously an element of severity here; a PDF copy of the rulebook would be in greater violation, and thus liable to greater penalty, but this does not mean that if you're not a scanned rulebook you can't be in violation. To further draw out the example, a bootleg DVD that only has the first ten minutes of an hour long movie is still in violation of IP laws... excerpting a chapter from The DaVinci Codes and putting them up on a web site for the public to read is still in violation of the IP laws... excerpting unit stats, rules, points cost and images from the rulebooks is in violation of IP. Just because you don't reproduce all of it doesn't make reproducing some of it free of legal ramifications.

On another note, I have been notified by another individual who has been actively contacting GW that they do not have an issue with AR as I do NOT validate the army lists and therefore it is possible to make illegal compositions and that this is just a tool, not a replacement for the army books.


Have you read Army Builder's backstory? I found it in another thread here just the other day. It's fairly interesting. It also illustrates the amount of difficulty and antagonism Games Workshop and Lone Wolf have had with one another about a program that does not even include any data. In relevant part:

Once AB was officially released, GW immediately adopted an adversarial stance towards AB, threatening litigation and other actions. Given the way that AB was released, though, there was nothing GW could do. By having the data files decoupled from the product and entirely fan-created, AB was unassailable.

This is essentially the reason why AB has not had to face any legal action. The above does not apply to armyroster.com, which is where the problem lies. The argument that 'illegal compositions' would prevent you from liability is a bit absurd. To further provide an example, if I take a book, remove all of the chapters from that book, and rearrange them in a random order (maybe duplicating some chapters, maybe leaving some others out), I am fairly certain to have an unintelligible work of literature on my hands. However, that does not change the fact that the chapters are still someone else's intellectual property.

I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.


If we're both providing backstories here, I'm not an attorney, but I am in the course of getting a legal education, and the things you learn in law school are not always matters of common sense. My purpose in explaining all of this to you is to help you 'find out about the laws and IP'. "But I'm worldly, and this isn't fair!" is not a defense if you get hauled into court by GW. I am not trying to be condescending; rather, I'm simply trying to make this easy to digest.

Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...


Earth's been around a couple hundred million years, right (biblical interpretations aside)? I'm sure if the sun were going to explode, it would have done it by now. I'm glad the sun is never going to explode(or go supernova, or whatever stars do).

Do you see the flaw in the reasoning, and how it applies to what you just said? "Operating for five weeks in a beta form that GW's legal department may or may not even know about is sure proof that you're free of liability." (I'm admittedly giving little credence to your above 'I know a guy who knows a guy who says this whole company thinks this is fine')

There is a difference between "100% lawsuit-proof" and "100% in violation." Can you argue to any degree whatsoever that the Warhammer content that is right now on your web site [by this I mean points cost, wargear, unit names] is original Intellectual Property? You cannot, honestly. There is no evidence of any degree that you could present to a court that would say "Yes, Azhag the Slaughterer is our intellectual property, and so is his wargear, stat line and special rules." There would be no question of material fact as to whether or not you are violating Games Workshop's intellectual property.

Now, whether of not you are 'lawsuit proof' depends on the decision of GW legal. Note that this says nothing about whether or not you are liable for any damages, or whether a court would find for or against you. It simply means that GW has a meritorious case that they could bring against you.

The distinction is important, because I was saying one, and not the other.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 03:39:13


Post by: ph34r


I remember thegreatuncleanone site. That was a quite useful site, and I imagine a site that uses even less IP, such as not listing options and costs online, would not have legal problems.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 04:13:44


Post by: AgeOfEgos


I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 05:08:34


Post by: jamsessionein


AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?


AB's not in violation of any of Games Workshop's intellectual property.

The program is simply a template that does math. It comes supplied with no data files, and is not set up by default for use with any particular game's information. You can only get out of it what you put into it - meaning, unless you make datafiles for things, the program will not supply you with any information.

Because of this 'generic' nature, it violates nobody's intellectual property.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/08 13:09:40


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


Well I'm not one to start a huge flame war so I will take what you have said in stride and try to apply it to my future dealings. There are a couple more comments I would just like to add.

TGUO was left alone for close to 4 years until my buddy shut it down for lack of time. He had far more information on that website that I have put up on AR and got away with it. I really do not think that AR will step on the toes of GW all to much... I can see them getting more steamed up over AB because people are allowed to put on descriptions of all items an rules through there.... so even though AR might not be legal in every aspect... or in any (depending on how anal people are), we retain the need to have a book and therefore do not cut into GW's profits... if anything, by allowing people to make mock-up lists of new armies they haven't played, we are driving more business to them!

Also after 5 weeks and almost 2400 members... you can bet (at least I would haha) that some kind of GW rep or employee has heard of it and it has made its way to someone

Anywho. Thanks for your input and advice jamsessionein, I will take it on board.

Cheers

Benny
AR


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 02:27:13


Post by: AgeOfEgos


jamsessionein wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:I didn't major in law so help me understand why AB wasn't in violation of IP. I always assumed GW didn't sue them due to PR, as the AB claim of not harboring intellectual property (While housing a program and links to sites that encourage it)...reminds me of Napster whom lost due to 'contributory infringement. Why does this not apply to AB?. I'm honestly curious...thoughts?


AB's not in violation of any of Games Workshop's intellectual property.

The program is simply a template that does math. It comes supplied with no data files, and is not set up by default for use with any particular game's information. You can only get out of it what you put into it - meaning, unless you make datafiles for things, the program will not supply you with any information.

Because of this 'generic' nature, it violates nobody's intellectual property.


Ok, I understand that portion..thanks for the explanation. However, let me pick your brain a bit more. What about he autolink to datafile downloads both in the program and on their site? This seems very similar to Napsters contributory suit? After all, Napster was simply a program that allowed file sharing...right?

/Just to make this clear, I'm just intellectually curious. I would grab my pitchfork and torch if GW actually went aggressive on AB!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 04:19:49


Post by: Buzzsaw


jamsessionein wrote:
ArmyRoster.com wrote:I don't mean to sound like I’m trying to knock you off of you high horse, but I have been involved with family business, international laws and court cases for the last 5 years... I'm only 21 and consider myself quite savvy when it comes to finding out about laws and IP. I know I still have loads of things to learn about a great many things but I seriously believe you do not give me enough credit on the matter.


If we're both providing backstories here, I'm not an attorney, but I am in the course of getting a legal education, and the things you learn in law school are not always matters of common sense. My purpose in explaining all of this to you is to help you 'find out about the laws and IP'. "But I'm worldly, and this isn't fair!" is not a defense if you get hauled into court by GW. I am not trying to be condescending; rather, I'm simply trying to make this easy to digest.


Well, allow me, as an actual (IP) attorney, allow me to give you (Jimmy) a piece of advice;

STOP TALKING

Now, when you say you're getting a legal education, I can only hope that you've yet to reach the point where you have studied legal ethics, specifically advice as the basis for formation of the attorney-client relationship... That said, think back to your first days of law school, when they told you the one and only answer an attorney gives someone asking a question: "it depends". What it depends on are the facts at issue (which you don't know completely) and the relevant law (this is a situation involving at least Trademark, Copyright and Contract law, which, if your posts in this thread are to be taken seriously, clearly you are also not well versed in).

jamsessionein wrote:
Now... I’m not claiming to have a 100% lawsuit proof website and there are still many many things to do before it become a legally air tight website. However, you telling me that you are 100% positive that I am violating IP laws lead me to believe that you do not fully understand what you are talking about. IF such a breach in IP laws was present. I would have undoubtedly received an email from GW legal right? It has been over 5 weeks since launch and we are still untouched by GW...


Earth's been around a couple hundred million years, right (biblical interpretations aside)? I'm sure if the sun were going to explode, it would have done it by now. I'm glad the sun is never going to explode(or go supernova, or whatever stars do).


Just preserving this segment, to preempt the "Where is my reasoning wrong?" objection. If you feel the need to make such an objection, reread the above, and then replace the preceding sentence with: Weeeell, see this analogy here? It's either an attempt to buffalo someone with a limited understanding of the law, or reasoning from someone unfamiliar with ancient (and not so ancient) common law concepts such as quasi-contract, estoppel, adverse possession, unjust enrichment, fair use, yadda, yadda, yadda. Please note: I'm not saying any of the aforementioned apply in whole or in part, see disclaimer at bottom. I'm just pointing out a terrible bit of legal reasoning.

jamsessionein wrote:There is a difference between "100% lawsuit-proof" and "100% in violation." Can you argue to any degree whatsoever that the Warhammer content that is right now on your web site [by this I mean points cost, wargear, unit names] is original Intellectual Property? You cannot, honestly. There is no evidence of any degree that you could present to a court that would say "Yes, Azhag the Slaughterer is our intellectual property, and so is his wargear, stat line and special rules." There would be no question of material fact as to whether or not you are violating Games Workshop's intellectual property.

Now, whether of not you are 'lawsuit proof' depends on the decision of GW legal. Note that this says nothing about whether or not you are liable for any damages, or whether a court would find for or against you. It simply means that GW has a meritorious case that they could bring against you.

The distinction is important, because I was saying one, and not the other.



This is the preemptive rebuttal of the "Where did I offer a legal opinion?" complaint.

If you feel I've been to harsh, feel free to PM me (I won't answer, I just want to spare further derailment of the thread).

As for why I'm not doing this in a PM, there are three reasons;

1) To publicly dispel any notions that legal opinions offered gratis on forums are to be trusted,

2) To reinforce that you (Jimmy) are not to be relied upon (and thus hopefully remove any notions of reliance by others, and hopefully liability for you), and

3) To be a jerk.

Disclaimer: I'm an attorney, but I don't know the facts at issue, don't want to know the facts at issue, and wouldn't offer an opinion on a forum even if I did know the facts at issue. You want an opinion you can rely on? It sounds like you have experience with attorneys (or solicitors, if your little flag is to be trusted), go to one you trust and get a paid-for opinion. It'll cost you, but you're buying the one thing that's priceless: peace of mind.*



This touching moment brought to you by the Committee for Perpetual Legal Employment, Internet spank Division.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 04:49:49


Post by: Joyous_Oblivion


Ok I have to say it...

It has been how many weeks since launch and still no 40k content?

And this thread is on a 40k (predominantly) board.

I hope you succeed, but plan to stick with Army Builder, as its very easy to use and I can leave my army books on the shelf.

Half the point of a digital army creator is not having to need to lug out the Army books to verify things all the time, just plug and play until you like your list.

Let us know if 40k is ever supported, then it *might* be worth looking into.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 05:30:06


Post by: malfred


There ARE fantasy fans here. We're not the majority, but we appreciate the effort.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 06:09:28


Post by: malfred


Does Armyroster.com have a banner gif of some kind?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/09 13:37:03


Post by: ArmyRoster.com


malfred wrote:Does Armyroster.com have a banner gif of some kind?


Yes we certainly do. http://www.armyroster.com/advertising.php there are 4 different sizes and they are in PNG format =)

Joyous_Oblivion wrote:Ok I have to say it...

It has been how many weeks since launch and still no 40k content?

And this thread is on a 40k (predominantly) board.

I hope you succeed, but plan to stick with Army Builder, as its very easy to use and I can leave my army books on the shelf.

Half the point of a digital army creator is not having to need to lug out the Army books to verify things all the time, just plug and play until you like your list.

Let us know if 40k is ever supported, then it *might* be worth looking into.


Lol. I realize that hauling books around may be too much to ask, but I do not think of AR as a full replacement for AB. There are many advantages to use AR over AB such as...

1. A community to have your lists reviewed
2. Your armies are all online and therefore can be accessed from anywhere
3. Frequent updates. I fix just about every bug reported within a day or less... AB does not do this and therefore is less reliable. I work personally with the community and implement exactly what has been suggested. I am open to making the application better for you guys.

40k will be added in the new year. As my first and only love has been Fantasy, it came first. I understand this is mainly a 40k board but, as malfred said, there are fantasy players on here and they do appreciate it

Benny
AR


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 21:47:56


Post by: Bookwrack


Looks like Ein had the right of it, Army Roster is going down.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 21:53:14


Post by: malfred


Hey everyone,

Well I received notice from GW that I have to shut down Army Roster. On the 6th of January Army Roster will be shutting down. The forums will remain open, but the application itself is now shutting down.

I will be trying to appeal my situation to Games Workshop at the end of next week, but nothing is certain. If they decide that I have truly violated there IP and deserve to be shutdown, I will be persuing other methods for sustaining AR... I'm not certain what this means or how I will do it, but there is always the option of completely opening the source for which armies are made and allowing the public to create any armies for any game system they want. I can do this just as AB has done it, and if GW decides not to take my offer then I will invest time to making it different.

Thanks for your support everyone. Please stick around the forums as much as possible =)

PS make as MANY lists as you can in the time being and print them all off... thats the only consolation I can provide. All of the armies WILL be wiped clean and they will all be deleted on the 6th of January 2009.

Benny
Founder of Army Roster


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 22:06:45


Post by: olympia


Bookwrack wrote:Looks like Ein had the right of it, Army Roster is going down.


Hmph...didn't see that coming....


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 22:20:02


Post by: Bookwrack


Well, my legal training comes solely from watching Law & Order, and just at a glance I knew AR was setting itself up for a fall.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 22:59:44


Post by: JokerGod


So much for having a fast way to run up a list with out paying 40$ for a pile of crap like AB.

Maby GW will finally get off its arse and update the EotI...


ArmyRoster.com @ 2008/12/31 23:28:43


Post by: jamsessionein


Well, like I said, I would have liked to see it go unmolested, but they just included too much information for GW to let that sort of thing stand.

Joker, it's worth mentioning that I bought AB and I seriously think I've gotten my money's worth. I make lists often enough that it makes my life vastly easier.



ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 00:03:17


Post by: Ozymandias


Well that's too bad. Hope they find a way to make it work as I liked having an online software to do my list building (so I can access it from work ).

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 00:30:18


Post by: Bookwrack


I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

And the whole Army Roster thing is just such an anti-surprise. The trouble they were making for themselves was plainly visible a mile away, When you're dealing with a company that is notoriously jealous in guarding its IP, putting up a site on the web that directly copies large chunks of their written data is a bad plan.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 01:15:17


Post by: BigToof


Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

Usually when *I* hear it, it's followed up with "so I might as well d/l it for free, right?"


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 01:29:28


Post by: AgeOfEgos


The only weakness of AB is that some rely it on it too heavily regarding rules. However, I cannot imagine building lists without it.

Your ArmyRoster idea might work if you allow users to input the data of their models (statistics and costs)...which then saves it to a file on their computer. Each time they log, they simply load their 'data' file from their email (Or HD). Essentially, take the weakest part of AB (The laborious process of creating data files) and make it better/easier.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 01:40:14


Post by: Buzzsaw


Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.


I can't speak for everyone, but the one time I saw someone bring a AB generated list to a tournament, we got halfway through before an observant bystander realized that said list was dramatically wrong. I suppose this is the danger of trust; we trusted the player to bring a legal list and he trusted his program would actually operate under the relevant rules. We were both proved foolish.

My gripes with AB are that, in my experience with people using it make lists, people assume that the program is right and don't double check it against their Codex to ensure things are correct. Which, if you stop for a moment, raises the question of why you should be paying for a glorified spreadsheet that you have to have check against the Codex against anyway... Beyond that, is the "convenience" of AB seriously worth paying for? Is there some widespread impediment to simply using Excel or (OpenOffice's) Calc for making lists?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 01:44:38


Post by: jamsessionein


Buzzsaw wrote:
Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.


I can't speak for everyone, but the one time I saw someone bring a AB generated list to a tournament, we got halfway through before an observant bystander realized that said list was dramatically wrong. I suppose this is the danger of trust; we trusted the player to bring a legal list and he trusted his program would actually operate under the relevant rules. We were both proved foolish.

My gripes with AB are that, in my experience with people using it make lists, people assume that the program is right and don't double check it against their Codex to ensure things are correct. Which, if you stop for a moment, raises the question of why you should be paying for a glorified spreadsheet that you have to have check against the Codex against anyway... Beyond that, is the "convenience" of AB seriously worth paying for? Is there some widespread impediment to simply using Excel or (OpenOffice's) Calc for making lists?


The program operates with the rules you load in. If someone's list was dramatically wrong, it was because he loaded the wrong datafile, or outdated ones. I'd not call that AB's fault in the least.

And to be fair, the army lists for 40k themselves are put together by an entirely benevolent team of people who get absolutely nothing for their hard work, and still somehow manage to have less errors in their final product than some of GW's own codicies.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 07:46:43


Post by: Bookwrack


Buzzsaw wrote:
Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.


I can't speak for everyone, but the one time I saw someone bring a AB generated list to a tournament, we got halfway through before an observant bystander realized that said list was dramatically wrong. I suppose this is the danger of trust; we trusted the player to bring a legal list and he trusted his program would actually operate under the relevant rules. We were both proved foolish.

No, it was only you who were foolish for believing his lie. If you do something illegal in army builder, it flashes a warning message that you're in violation (too many points, too many Heavy choices, too many terminators crammed into a Land Raider, whatever). If you somehow miss that warning, another warning window pops up that your list contains a rule violation when you try and save, or when you try and print. If his list was 'dramatically wrong,' then he ignored multiple explicit warnings when he made it, and if he did that than I seriously doubt that a list built with any other method would have been any better. AB was just a convenient scapegoat. It's not perfect, and while it's quite possible to accidentally make a small mistake, making dramatic ones isn't.

There's no impediment to using excel, save that as an app made specifically for managing army lists, AB is faster, better laid out, and more accurate than any spreadsheet I could throw together. Just like how, sure, I could do my taxes all by hand, or balance my budget using a pencil and a notepad, but the convenience and ease of use of turbotax and quicken make them infinitely preferable.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 17:45:01


Post by: JokerGod


Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

And the whole Army Roster thing is just such an anti-surprise. The trouble they were making for themselves was plainly visible a mile away, When you're dealing with a company that is notoriously jealous in guarding its IP, putting up a site on the web that directly copies large chunks of their written data is a bad plan.


I say it is crap because they are selling something that dos nothing. They are going to charge you (I believe its 40$, could be wrong) for a program that dos absolutely nothing at all other then take other files that where created by other people and they don't get gak for it.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 17:54:44


Post by: Steelmage99


Jokergod, the thing you point out is exactly what keeps them in business and what kills Armyroster.com.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:00:03


Post by: JokerGod


Yes, how dare I dislike them for charging people to buy a program that dos nothing!

I don't care that the program and the files are apart, what pisses me off is that the people doing all the work don't get any of the money.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:01:10


Post by: Bookwrack


Ha-ha, JokerGod that's really funny, thanks for the laugh.

See, that's what I mean when I say despite hearing people call AB crap, no one ever bothers to back the claim up.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:02:01


Post by: strange_eric


Bookwrack wrote:
No, it was only you who were foolish for believing his lie. If you do something illegal in army builder, it flashes a warning message that you're in violation (too many points, too many Heavy choices, too many terminators crammed into a Land Raider, whatever). If you somehow miss that warning, another warning window pops up that your list contains a rule violation when you try and save, or when you try and print. If his list was 'dramatically wrong,' then he ignored multiple explicit warnings when he made it, and if he did that than I seriously doubt that a list built with any other method would have been any better. AB was just a convenient scapegoat. It's not perfect, and while it's quite possible to accidentally make a small mistake, making dramatic ones isn't.

There's no impediment to using excel, save that as an app made specifically for managing army lists, AB is faster, better laid out, and more accurate than any spreadsheet I could throw together. Just like how, sure, I could do my taxes all by hand, or balance my budget using a pencil and a notepad, but the convenience and ease of use of turbotax and quicken make them infinitely preferable.


Uhm yeah I'm not sure you've used Army Builder before.. Cause they get army lists wrong sometimes (see: a lot). Out of the gate and fresh there's errors all over the place. Sometimes small, sometimes odd (like the new VC list which had a bug if you selected a certain vampire power it gave you an additional 25pts of Magic items for some reason). So don't go throwing out accusations so easily that the guys a liar. It took them year(s) to fix the last Chaos Codex. So yes dramatic problems are entirely possible.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:02:12


Post by: Joyous_Oblivion


So does this armyroster thing still exist?

And if it does, does it support 40k yet?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:09:39


Post by: JokerGod


it exists for a few more days. and no it doesn't have 40K on it.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:13:55


Post by: Ghaz


JokerGod wrote:I say it is crap because they are selling something that dos nothing. They are going to charge you (I believe its 40$, could be wrong) for a program that dos absolutely nothing at all other then take other files that where created by other people and they don't get gak for it.

It does exactly what it says that it does. As for the datafiles being created by someone else, place the blame where it belongs, with Games Workshop and not Lone Wolf. From the Lone Wolf Forums:

Greetings,

Since this topic seems to be coming up on a recurring basis, I figured I would take the time to try and provide a little background on this issue. The reality is that we've been striving for more than a decade to work out an equitable license with GW to write official data files for their games. If you're interested in the history behind all this, read on for a recap of the past 11 years as it pertains to AB data files and why volunteers are writing them.

When AB was first prototyped back in 1997, it was designed exclusively as a tool for Warhammer Fantasy. That's simply because WHFB was the game I regularly played at the time. After seeing the prototype in action at local Cons, a few prominent GW players were emphatic that AB should be turned into an actual product. So I contacted GW and they expressed interest. I flew to the UK twice to meet with GW's senior staff about the project and everything looked like a go to publish AB as a GW product.

As development of AB 1.0 neared completion, nothing had been actually signed with GW, and it became apparent that the terms we originally discussed were no longer satisfactory to GW. I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable. So I was left with either taking what they offered or figuring out a different strategy.

I broke off discussions with GW and set about revising the AB release plan. After consulting with legal counsel, I concluded that I could safely publish the engine without any data files. As long as the product was "generic" and designed to work for a range of game systems, and as long as the data files for individual game system were not included, AB would be safe from any legal concerns. In order for Lone Wolf to develop or sell data files, a license from the game company is required. However, if all of the intellectual property of each game company resided in the data files, and those data files were not developed or sold by Lone Wolf, no license was required. AB would work a lot like Excel, with AB providing a generalized tool and the data files being comparable to spreadsheets.

Since I'd been doing software development for many years and learned from some of the best, AB had already been built around a data-driven engine. This made it easy to separate the data files from the actual product. The trick would be in making it possible for users to create and share those data files. I needed to formalize things better and document how the data formats worked so that users could write the data files for AB. I also needed to extend the engine for use with other miniatures game systems that were available. After a couple months of extra work, AB V1.0 was ready to go.

Once AB was officially released, GW immediately adopted an adversarial stance towards AB, threatening litigation and other actions. Given the way that AB was released, though, there was nothing GW could do. By having the data files decoupled from the product and entirely fan-created, AB was unassailable. More importantly, AB became an invaluable tool for a wide range of game systems as a result of its generic nature.

A year or two later, after AB had established itself as a solid product, GW decided internally that they needed their own product that did what AB did. GW retained a consultant to assess the costs and look at the various options available. He came to the conclusion that licensing AB for use by GW was the most sensible option and championed the idea internally at GW. Sadly, after months of discussions, the idea of licensing AB was ultimately shot down by GW's execs, and GW set about developing their first attempt at replacing AB.

I was already at work on AB 2.0, which raised the bar significantly over AB 1.x. Fortunately, when GW's Interactive Army List was finally released, it was unable to compete with AB. The success of AB earned further ire from GW's executive ranks, who maintained their adversarial stance towards AB. Among GW's creative staff, though, AB quietly and steadily became the tool of choice.

The "cold war" between GW and Lone Wolf persisted for a few years. During that time, key GW design staff volunteered that they all used AB in-house and thought that a formal licensing arrangement would be good for everyone. We finally got AB 3.0 out the door at the end of 2004. Meanwhile, GW came out with a new and improved IAL product. The new IAL met with a poor reception, as AB had already established itself as the de facto tool for miniatures games.

A few members of the GW design staff privately suggested to us that the failure of the second IAL release had resulted in a philosophical shift at GW. Apparently, the general attitude of the GW execs had become open to discussing a license for AB again. So we approached GW about the possibility. The overall process was extremely slow and required the GW licensing person to work carefully around some of the negativity that lingered towards AB. It seemed that progress was being made and that something would ultimately be worked out. Then the licensing person left GW and a new person took over, requiring us to essentially start over from the beginning again. We soldiered on, but we were unable to regain any serious traction with the new licensing person. After *three years* of ongoing discussions, GW finally made the decision this year that they were no longer interested and broke off talks.

Assuming we were to secure a formal license with GW, our plan was to quickly follow suit with all the other miniatures companies. Since they all generally view AB as a valuable tool for their games, we figured that it would be relatively easy to secure licenses with everyone else once GW was onboard. However, without the support of GW, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to secure those licenses. Overseeing development of all the data files in-house would be a lot of work that would entail significant cost. Since the GW data files are both the most popular and most complex, the greatest benefit would be gained by managing those data files with in-house oversight and control. Lacking the ability to officially do GW files, the perceived added value to users would not be sufficient to justify the additional product cost increases needed to pay for all the data file development. So we concluded that it was better to keep the price point unchanged and keep all the data files fan-created.

That pretty much sums up why Lone Wolf doesn't do any of the data files for miniatures games. We'd very much like to, and we've invested significant time and energy towards being able to do so. In fact, we started out with that goal in 1997 and have been striving to achieve that goal with GW for 11 years now. Alas, it's been to no avail. What I'd love more than anything is to work directly with the fans creating the data files for all the various games and pay them for their efforts. They could then put in more time and get compensated for their work, plus we could do better testing before release. We could also get pre-release information from the publishers so that data files are available when the products hit the street, instead of having development merely get *started* when each release comes out. It would be a win for everyone.

Sadly, GW has decided that it doesn't share that vision, which leaves us all with fan-created files that are developed on a purely volunteer basis. Volunteers mean we don't get to complain when the data files aren't completed as quickly as we'd like. These guys are doing a bang-up job on a very difficult task. We should all be thankful that they are investing all that time and energy for the rest of us to benefit from, without any compensation other than knowing they did a great job. I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied. If we did anything material for the volunteers, GW could claim that we're actually compensating them for their efforts, which would open everything up to legal recourse from GW. So all we can do here at Lone Wolf is express our thanks and keep hoping that someday we can work out something official with GW.

Thanks for listening....

Are you going to go blame Microsoft for selling Excel which 'does nothing'? Perhaps you should know the facts before you start hurling insults at somebody.

strange_eric wrote:Uhm yeah I'm not sure you've used Army Builder before.. Cause they get army lists wrong sometimes (see: a lot). Out of the gate and fresh there's errors all over the place. Sometimes small, sometimes odd (like the new VC list which had a bug if you selected a certain vampire power it gave you an additional 25pts of Magic items for some reason). So don't go throwing out accusations so easily that the guys a liar. It took them year(s) to fix the last Chaos Codex. So yes dramatic problems are entirely possible.

And the Fantasy files are totally separate from the 40K files which the people here are discussing. The 40K files are maintain by a dedicated group. The Fantasy files are maintained by a single person (or no one at times). So if they're talking about the 40K files, then their accusations are most likely correct and well founded.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:21:03


Post by: JokerGod


Edit - This post did not add to the discussion and was simply designed to be aggravating and provoke a response; this is known as trolling. Please refrain from doing so in the future. - Iorek


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 18:44:15


Post by: Ghaz


Grow up. If you were to bother to read the post instead of acting like a troll you would see that if he did give anything to the people who wrote the datafiles then GW would have a reason to shut him down.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

So there you go troll. Stop posting if you don't have a clue (which you obviously don't have).


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 19:11:20


Post by: BrookM


Hurray for people who are too pigheaded or stupid to see the point!

Now shoo, let the grown ups talk.

+ + +

It's interesting to hear the whole thing from Army Builder and it is a pity that GW is acting like a jojo on deciding whether or not to do it. I'm sure they have their reasons, big companies are known for wanting to do things their own way and not lose control over their stuff.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/01 20:07:49


Post by: Tribune


Thanks for posting that excerpt Ghaz. it made the page or so of insults worth trawling through to get to that interesting info. GW certainly like to retain creative control of any product using their IP, but they clearly encountered someone who wasn't willing to give them the farm when they stamped their feet. Which I find amusing.

I also recall needing to switch over my AB 1.x between PCs but only had the soft version. Rather than forcing me to buy another license for the new PC, the guy I contacted at LoneWolf was good enough to give me a new license gratis.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 04:13:36


Post by: Buzzsaw


Ghaz wrote:
JokerGod wrote:I say it is crap because they are selling something that dos nothing. They are going to charge you (I believe its 40$, could be wrong) for a program that dos absolutely nothing at all other then take other files that where created by other people and they don't get gak for it.

It does exactly what it says that it does. As for the datafiles being created by someone else, place the blame where it belongs, with Games Workshop and not Lone Wolf.

...

Are you going to go blame Microsoft for selling Excel which 'does nothing'? Perhaps you should know the facts before you start hurling insults at somebody.

strange_eric wrote:Uhm yeah I'm not sure you've used Army Builder before.. Cause they get army lists wrong sometimes (see: a lot). Out of the gate and fresh there's errors all over the place. Sometimes small, sometimes odd (like the new VC list which had a bug if you selected a certain vampire power it gave you an additional 25pts of Magic items for some reason). So don't go throwing out accusations so easily that the guys a liar. It took them year(s) to fix the last Chaos Codex. So yes dramatic problems are entirely possible.

And the Fantasy files are totally separate from the 40K files which the people here are discussing. The 40K files are maintain by a dedicated group. The Fantasy files are maintained by a single person (or no one at times). So if they're talking about the 40K files, then their accusations are most likely correct and well founded.


I gotta say, this is one of the oddest arguments I've seen; that the fault lies with Games Workshop? Seriously?

The Lone Wolf Studio post you quote doesn't say GW wouldn't license their property, no, it says "[u]nfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable." Or, put another way, GW was willing to license their IP, but Rob (Lone Wolf) didn't feel he was getting what he wanted. Those devils! How dare they take a fiscally conservative stance towards the IP that comprises the life-blood of their business!

Certainly the only reasonable course of action is to strip out all the IP and farm development of the guts of your product to unpaid volunteers. Such noble sacrifice! That doing so shields the publisher from legal liability while simultaneously allowing them to divert any blame for deficiencies in their product onto their flock of dupes no doubt only passingly entered into the calculation. What's that you say? This hasn't led to a decrease in quality? I mean, it's not like "[t]he 40K files are maintain by a dedicated group [or] [t]he Fantasy files are maintained by a single person (or no one at times)". Or, to put it another way, the actual building of armies (which, ostensibly the program has some tangential use for) relies on a part of the program over which the manufacturer/seller has no direct oversight or quality control. A portion of the program which, if there is an error, it's wholly on the end-user to find an updated (and potentially more correct) element. But no worries, should there be a problem with the program and you're called a cheater "their accusations [of end user malfeasance] are most likely correct and well founded."

Don't worry though, even though the most complicated portion of the enterprise has been farmed out to unpaid, random folks, Lone Wolf will be thanking people with a commensurately lower price. Oh, wait, "we concluded that it was better to keep the price point unchanged and keep all the data files fan-created". Hmm, well, that's okay, I mean it's not like there are professional, Excel-file-compatible spreadsheet programs available for free.

Have no fear though, you unappreciated lads actually churning out the game files. Lone Wolf would, like, totally be paying you for your work, but "our hands are tied". I mean, sure, "we figured that it would be relatively easy to secure licenses with everyone else", but, you know, only "once GW was onboard." Listen, you guys making files for Confrontation, Warlord, Starship Troopers, Babylon 5: A Call to Arms or any of the others, they would reeeeealy like to "actually do something for them as a "thank you"", but, bummer, "without the support of GW, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to secure those licenses."

That GW license should be coming any day now though, I mean, it's not like AB has destroyed the market for GW's own licenses system. "Fortunately, when GW's Interactive Army List was finally released, it was unable to compete with AB". Well, no doubt GW can take solace that "Among GW's creative staff, though, AB quietly and steadily became the tool of choice", and "key GW design staff volunteered that they all used AB in-house and thought that a formal licensing arrangement would be good for everyone". I'm also sure that, despite coming from a Lone Wolf spokesman, painting GW execs as cartoon businessmen (anyone else picture the guy from monopoly?), reaffirming that the people that are actually doing the work won't be getting any compensation any time soon, and sincerely reiterating that if GW would stop being so touchy about their silly IP it "would be a win for everyone". It's tooooootaly not self-serving.

What's that? You still think it's self-serving? You paid $40 for an army building program that can't actually build your new army? Cram it; haven't you heard? "Volunteers mean we don't get to complain when the data files aren't completed as quickly as we'd like."

Too long, didn't read? To sum up;

Lone Wolf Studios is composed of geniuses: they've convinced the public to not only buy their product, but some of them actually donate the most important part of the product. If GM had salesmen (and customers) like these the roads would be full of Flintstones cars.

The fans that produce the data files are generous, dedicated and duped: sorry, but if you're spending your free time to enable someone else to sell their own product (and skirt IP protection), but yeah, you're a dupe, a patsy, a chump. Now, that may seem harsh, but stop and think for a second: if you were making the same army datasheets but for Excel/Calc, the results for the end user would be the same (or better, since everyone either has Excel or can obtain Calc for free), and your own efforts would be roughly similar. The only real difference is that, while remaining generous and dedicated, you'd no longer be a dupe putting money in someone else's pocket.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 04:28:09


Post by: stonefox


Ghaz wrote:Grow up. If you were to bother to read the post instead of acting like a troll you would see that if he did give anything to the people who wrote the datafiles then GW would have a reason to shut him down.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

So there you go troll. Stop posting if you don't have a clue (which you obviously don't have).


Yeah, well, it still doesn't change the reality of what he says. I guess LoneWolf's PR-rep is good enough that you'd hang on to that quote and dismiss anything else. All it takes is a few lines to tug the right heart strings and you'll have people exclaiming, "awwww, they really DO care for the people who make this do-nothing program profitable at all!"


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 05:00:10


Post by: Ghaz


Once again, I see people trying to defend GW with baseless arguments. How do you know what GW offered? Are you psychic or were you actually there? Once again, instead of being a troll, how about actually reading the facts:

I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable.

So GW wasn't willing to go with industry standards, but most likely wanted the program for little or nothing. So he should have game them the program out of the goodness of his heart? The same thing you're accusing the datafile authors of doing? Such hypocrisy on your part is astounding.

stonefox wrote:Yeah, well, it still doesn't change the reality of what he says. I guess LoneWolf's PR-rep is good enough that you'd hang on to that quote and dismiss anything else. All it takes is a few lines to tug the right heart strings and you'll have people exclaiming, "awwww, they really DO care for the people who make this do-nothing program profitable at all!"

More baseless accusations I see. Never once has anybody at Lone Wolf ever asked anybody to make datafiles for them for free. Get your facts straight before you start making such ignorant remarks.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 05:16:40


Post by: Polonius


The level of hostilty in this thread seems a bit out of proportion to what's being discussed.

Army Builder is a software tool. In today's open source world, it is amazing that a piece of single use software can be sold for $40, but as it works better than anything available, it's a tool that many gamers find useful, and not just for 40k, or wFB, or FOW, etc. Leaving aside for the moment that AB2.0 was one of the most pirated programs around (who didn't have a cracked copy?), I bought AB 3.0 for the simple reason that I like the interface and even if datafiles weren't available, I could save myself time by creating simple datafiles of my army to fiddle with army configurations.

If you don't like AB, that's fine. I've used excel, I've used paper and pencil, and for my money AB is superior, but YMMV. I find the datafile maintainers to be a bit superior and touchy with their rules interpretations (the great power Klaw debate was not their finest hour), but they produce a product that works amazingly well. I'd imagine they do it for the same reason people on the internet do things: they enjoy doing it and/or they like having a tiny bit of power. I don't see anything wrong with that.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 14:03:54


Post by: Lorek


QFT, Polonius. You just saved me a long post saying exactly what you just said.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 14:46:17


Post by: JokerGod


Ghaz wrote:Grow up. If you were to bother to read the post instead of acting like a troll you would see that if he did give anything to the people who wrote the datafiles then GW would have a reason to shut him down.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

So there you go troll. Stop posting if you don't have a clue (which you obviously don't have).


I did read it, maby you should next time.

Thanks to Buzzsaw and his ability to use logic and intelect I don't have to make a long post here, how ever because I know you (And your type) your not going to read it and instead just look for small things to flam him (and my self) about.

SO here is a brake down, LW got greedy and blamed it on GW, then he took all the real data out of his program and sold it for 40$ saying "Here is what you need to run it and write it all your self, have fun" then after he realized it was working he told every one "I would LIKE to pay you, but I can't because GW is greedy! how ever, even tho I aperantly have a crack legal team here, I chose to ignore that it is perfectly legal to give money to people as a gift and not for the work they do, because that would leave less money for me."

Every one is so fast to blame GW, I bet any money if some one wrote out a good program and pitched it to GW with out the greed of Lone Wolf they would go with it. And lets face it kids, he is a greedy frak, 40$ for a program that is worthless unless you go out and get the data from volunteers, just imagine what his price was with the data in it.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 15:41:53


Post by: Polonius


JokerGod wrote:

SO here is a brake down, LW got greedy and blamed it on GW,


Unless you have actual details of the offer GW made to LW, it's unfair to not take LW at their word that they were simply seeking the standard license agreement. Given the time in GW's history, it's quite plausible that they were lowballing LW while hoping to put out their own product. If you have actual evidence of greed, that would be interesting, until then I'm content to see two businesses unable to reach a mutually satisfactory deal.

then he took all the real data out of his program and sold it for 40$ saying "Here is what you need to run it and write it all your self, have fun"


Well, they also enable the software to be much more multiuse, which is something you seem to be downplaying. It went from a program that could build 40k armies to a program that could run datafiles for anything.

then after he realized it was working he told every one "I would LIKE to pay you, but I can't because GW is greedy! how ever, even tho I aperantly have a crack legal team here, I chose to ignore that it is perfectly legal to give money to people as a gift and not for the work they do, because that would leave less money for me."


Are you a legal expert? I doubt it based on your statement above, but if you are I'd be interested to see the rationale. In what I've studied, courts have always looked at underlying intent in determining if a transfer is a gift or a payment for services rendered. I'm my studies of tax law in particular it would seem unlikely that any tax court would uphold those transfers as gifts due to the lack of donative intent. There was a clear quid pro quo, and that's not a gift. I haven't studied IP law, but if I saw a company making cash transfers to a group of volunteers that were violating my IP, I'd call it copyright infringment in a heartbeat.

Every one is so fast to blame GW, I bet any money if some one wrote out a good program and pitched it to GW with out the greed of Lone Wolf they would go with it.


Again, do you have any evidence to back this up, or do you just have an ax to grind with LW?

And lets face it kids, he is a greedy frak, 40$ for a program that is worthless unless you go out and get the data from volunteers, just imagine what his price was with the data in it.


I don't see this. I guess you've made up your mind on this issue, and clearly have some completely over the top rage about it, but at best you're dramatically overstating your argument, and at worst your simply wrong. AB would be worth far less to me if the 40k datafiles maintained by Ghaz and the boys didn't exist. That's a fact, and one that is the basis for your argument. What doesn't follow from that is that AB now becomes worthless, or the that LW is somehow "greedy." An iPod is $300 and doesn't do anything out of the box. My car is only useful if there is a vast network of governmental built and maintained roads. Radios only have value in a situation where people are broadcasting programming. AB at least includes the tools to build datafiles, which from what I've heard is a chore but not herculean.

I think rather than say that AB is a worthless program that doesn't do anything, it makes more sense to look at if from the angle of getting datafiles for free, all you need to do is buy a reader. You can keep repeating the words "useless" and "greedy," but that's less and less a cogent argument and instead an increasingly shrill venom laced opinion.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 15:53:42


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Well, I use an advanced method for writing my list, called Pen And Paper.

I wouldn't say I'm at all ahead of the curve, but I've been using this as an extension to the various Codecies and Army Books, and have had wild success in constructing accurate army lists, both in terms of content and points values.

It's cheaply available from most good Stationars, and each pack of 'Paper' is good for about 500 odd lists.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 16:17:50


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius wins the thread.

Army Builder is convenient, and when I’ve had a copy (I don’t presently) I’ve found it easy and fun to use, and to encourage me to make more army lists and tinker with choices in an enjoyable way. Right now I’m happy using my codex and paper, but I expect I’ll pick up Army Builder again soon. It does have value. Whether that value is worth $40, is entirely up to the person considering the purchase.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 16:31:58


Post by: Ghaz


Thank you Polonius. I definitely could not have said it as well.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 17:02:59


Post by: Ozymandias


Now if only AB 4.0 is online based, I may actually have to purchase it...

Ozymandias, King of Kings


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 17:23:25


Post by: Buzzsaw


First, you are quite right Polonius, this is a topic that doesn't deserve such heat. Finding out Ghaz is one of the volunteers also makes taking the wind out of his sails much less amusing. So I'll let the following snark fly and then try my best to assume an attitude of solemn charity.

Ghaz wrote:Once again, I see people trying to defend GW with baseless arguments. How do you know what GW offered? Are you psychic or were you actually there? Once again, instead of being a troll, how about actually reading the facts:
I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable.

So GW wasn't willing to go with industry standards, but most likely wanted the program for little or nothing. So he should have game them the program out of the goodness of his heart? The same thing you're accusing the datafile authors of doing? Such hypocrisy on your part is astounding.


Is this an entry into the hilarious post of the week, or did you really not realize how much inconsistency you crammed into those 3 slim paragraphs? You castigate someone (I am assuming Joker, since it's even more unfounded if directed at my comments) for using "baseless arguments" and asking "[h]ow do you know what GW offered", then quote "Rob" from Lone Wolf and not only treat it as fact, but interpolate that "GW wasn't willing to go with industry standards, but most likely wanted the program for little or nothing". Tell me, "[a]re you psychic or were you actually there?"

Ghaz, if we believe "Rob", then we know two things from the statement you quoted: 1) That GW was willing to make a deal, and 2) The "structure" they offered Rob "considered to be less than equitable".

If you want to take from that that GW "wanted the program for little or nothing", well, then nothing I can say is going to convince you otherwise, since you're clearly going off of information we don't have access to.

Ghaz wrote:
stonefox wrote:Yeah, well, it still doesn't change the reality of what he says. I guess LoneWolf's PR-rep is good enough that you'd hang on to that quote and dismiss anything else. All it takes is a few lines to tug the right heart strings and you'll have people exclaiming, "awwww, they really DO care for the people who make this do-nothing program profitable at all!"

More baseless accusations I see. Never once has anybody at Lone Wolf ever asked anybody to make datafiles for them for free. Get your facts straight before you start making such ignorant remarks.


I don't even know what you're trying to say here. That the data files must be user generated and that the users must be uncompensated is explicit. As Rob says, "those data files were not developed or sold by Lone Wolf" so that "no license was required."

Let's put it another way: how many times does Rob say that he can't do X, Y or Z because it will incur legal liability? When, in another sphere of your life, would you accept and be supportive of an endeavor with those kinds of codicils?

Compare the following 2 forums:
The Elitist Jerks Forum: Familiar to anyone involved in high-end play in World of Warcraft, the Elitist Jerks Class Mechanics forum contains numerous spreadsheets and even stand alone programs, developed using hundreds of volunteers and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of man hours. Rawr and the Roguecraft spreadsheet (to name just 2) are incredible undertakings, and you know what? They're 100% free to download and either run on free programs, or are free stand alone programs!

Lone Wolf Development Support Forum Index: The home forums for AB, here we too find many datafiles, no doubt the work of hundreds of people and thousands of hours of effort, also all volunteers and enthusiasts. But while all of these are free to download, none of them run on a free program. The hundreds of volunteers and their thousands of hours of work are simply given to Lone Wolf. Not to the community, to Lone Wolf.

Both of the groups of volunteers are generous people trying to contribute to their hobby, no question about that. The difference is that the Jerks (ironically) are completely straight with the folks posting on their boards; nobody is going to get anything for their work but self-satisfaction and in turn nobody is going to have to pay to use their work. By contrast, how many times does Rob protest and "wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you"" ah, but alas "our hands are tied"?

Hey, you want to be generous and help out someone you like (Lone Wolf)? Knock yourself out, go crazy with those datafiles. You want to help out the community of fans? Make stylesheets for Excel/Calc and be satisfied that even if they aren't exactly the same as they were in AB, they're 100% free for everyone.

But don't kid yourself that helping Lone Wolf sell AB is the same as helping the community. If you think that, then guess what? You've bought the Amway products and convinced yourself it's a great financial opportunity.

If all of that sounds harsh, then what can I say but that I get upset when I see generous people taken advantage of.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 17:26:50


Post by: winterman


Nevermind


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 18:03:06


Post by: Polonius


@ Buzzsaw: You make some good points, but you fall into the same trap you accuse Ghaz of falling for. There seems to be no disagreement that there was at least a meeting between LW and GW, but we know that nothing came of it. That means that at least one party was unsatisfied with the offer. Knowing (with hindsight) that the product would sell perfectly well even if not lisenced, it tends to lend some credibility to the idea that LW's work is more valuable than what might at first be seen. Additionally, just because there is not reason to believe Rob's statements, there is no reason to think that he's lying. Believing them wholesale, as a neutral party, is a bit naive, but it's overly cynical to assume that he's lying, absent any other facts or history. Does that mean GW wanted the program for a pittance? Not necessarily, but it does seem likely that GW underestimated the products viability and the difficulty in creating and updating such a product (see the IAL fiasco), which would lead me to think that GW lowballed the offer. LW saw enormous growth (that materialized), and so maybe Rob wanted more than GW was willing to offer. All we know is that Rob was probably right to value his program highly.

As for taking advantage of the volunteers, I think you're overreaching a bit, as well as substituting your judgement for theirs. I can see that you wouldn't want to work on the datafiles, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't. Additionally, it's a fallacy to hold that the maintainers help LW but not the community. They help both, and as many people in the community like their work and AB, it's a net positive for the community.

I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.



ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 19:02:08


Post by: Buzzsaw


Polonius wrote:@ Buzzsaw: You make some good points, but you fall into the same trap you accuse Ghaz of falling for. There seems to be no disagreement that there was at least a meeting between LW and GW, but we know that nothing came of it. That means that at least one party was unsatisfied with the offer. Knowing (with hindsight) that the product would sell perfectly well even if not lisenced, it tends to lend some credibility to the idea that LW's work is more valuable than what might at first be seen. Additionally, just because there is not reason to believe Rob's statements, there is no reason to think that he's lying. Believing them wholesale, as a neutral party, is a bit naive, but it's overly cynical to assume that he's lying, absent any other facts or history. Does that mean GW wanted the program for a pittance? Not necessarily, but it does seem likely that GW underestimated the products viability and the difficulty in creating and updating such a product (see the IAL fiasco), which would lead me to think that GW lowballed the offer. LW saw enormous growth (that materialized), and so maybe Rob wanted more than GW was willing to offer. All we know is that Rob was probably right to value his program highly.


I think you've misunderstood how I view the meeting, as I view it essentially the same way you seem to: there was the possibility of an offer, but the terms were a sticking point. Beyond that we have no ideas. My point in mentioning it is not to imply GW's terms were objectively "fair", since obviously no such valuation is possible. My point rather is to rebut the assumption that seems to be made that GW was categorically disinterested in a license. Far from believing Rob's lying, my position is that he is telling the truth, albeit the truth from his perspective.

Polonius wrote:As for taking advantage of the volunteers, I think you're overreaching a bit, as well as substituting your judgement for theirs. I can see that you wouldn't want to work on the datafiles, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't. Additionally, it's a fallacy to hold that the maintainers help LW but not the community. They help both, and as many people in the community like their work and AB, it's a net positive for the community.


You're engaged in a faulty bit of logic there: Putting aside that I did not dispute they help the community, the point is that unlike the example I gave of the EJ forum community, who provide assistance that is truly free, the AB file contributors are providing free services for a for-profit company. The fact that many people appreciate it isn't really important to the fact that the community isn't the only party benefiting, stated more plainly;

If AB datafile creators used Excel/Calc to develop their stylesheets: the community as a whole benefits, with no drawbacks or fees, as the programs are either available for free or already owned by the community.

If AB datafile creators produce files for AB: a portion of the community benefits, Lone Wolf benefits, but that portion that receives any benefit must buy Lone Wolf's product to access the benefit. The only pure beneficiary is Lone Wolf.

Polonius wrote:I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.


Well, yeah. Having compared them to Amway international I think it's fair to say I don't like their business model.

Although, in fairness, as an IP attorney the logistics of Lone Wolf's operations aren't exactly rubbing me the right way. That said, I really am a bit irked by this notion that giving free services to LW is a service to the community; it isn't, I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.

That said, you do bring up a good point: if I'm not willing to develop datafiles, do I really have room to complain? Well, it's true that I have no interest in producing datafiles for AB, but I'll admit I have toyed with the idea of creating stylesheets for army building for Calc/Excel. As an academic question, would people be interested in that?

Edit: Whoo hoo! 100 Posts and a new title, hot dawg!


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 19:34:04


Post by: Polonius


Buzzsaw wrote:
I think you've misunderstood how I view the meeting, as I view it essentially the same way you seem to: there was the possibility of an offer, but the terms were a sticking point. Beyond that we have no ideas. My point in mentioning it is not to imply GW's terms were objectively "fair", since obviously no such valuation is possible. My point rather is to rebut the assumption that seems to be made that GW was categorically disinterested in a license. Far from believing Rob's lying, my position is that he is telling the truth, albeit the truth from his perspective.


Ok, I think I understand better now what you meant. I agree, in that I think it was a business meeting in which an agreement simply couldn't be met. There was a lot of talk from other posters about greed that I may have interlaced with your post, which was my mistake. I stand by my supposition that GW probaly thought they had LW over the barrel, and that AB would be worthless without a license. This was in the late 90's, before the legality of the devices that easily allow piracy was really established. A few court rulings that go the other way and AB is worth diddly.

You're engaged in a faulty bit of logic there: Putting aside that I did not dispute they help the community, the point is that unlike the example I gave of the EJ forum community, who provide assistance that is truly free, the AB file contributors are providing free services for a for-profit company. The fact that many people appreciate it isn't really important to the fact that the community isn't the only party benefiting, stated more plainly;

If AB datafile creators used Excel/Calc to develop their stylesheets: the community as a whole benefits, with no drawbacks or fees, as the programs are either available for free or already owned by the community.

If AB datafile creators produce files for AB: a portion of the community benefits, Lone Wolf benefits, but that portion that receives any benefit must buy Lone Wolf's product to access the benefit. The only pure beneficiary is Lone Wolf.


Again, you seem overly concerned with the windfall to LW in this analysis. That AB sales are primarily because of the 40k datafiles is not the controlling factor. The maintainers provide their service to enable those people how own AB with 40k files. Maybe a redrawing of what is meant by community is necessary, but they certainly provide a huge service to AB customers. The analogy I would draw is to mutliplayer maps for FPS games: they dramatically increase the value of the game, yet people create them to benefit the people who own the game, not the company that makes the FPS. That the FPS's author benefits is a windfall, not the goal.

Additionally, I'm kind of curious when you keep bringing up open source solutions from other sources if such a solution would work for 40k? I would imagine it could, but it would have to be a pretty complicated spreadsheet, with tons of pages. It might, just might, actually be easier for the creators of the datafiles to work in AB than in excel. If that's true (and I have a hunch that it is), then I think it shifts the case less away from maintainers solely working to benefit LW and it's customers to simply using the best tool for the job.


Well, yeah. Having compared them to Amway international I think it's fair to say I don't like their business model.

Although, in fairness, as an IP attorney the logistics of Lone Wolf's operations aren't exactly rubbing me the right way. That said, I really am a bit irked by this notion that giving free services to LW is a service to the community; it isn't, I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.


Why does AB bother you in regards to IP law? By my limited understanding, the tools used to allow copying can't really be regulated nearly as well as the actual acts of copying. Im also under the impression that the 40k datafile guys have a tacit understanding with GW. I find it difficult to believe that if GW wanted to, they couldn't shut down AB's 40k datafiles. The PR hit would probably offset any gain, but it's hard to pin GW as the victim of IP fraud when they have every means of shutting it down and don't.

I'm finding it suprising that you're having such a difficult time seperating the beneficiaries of their work. LW is a major third party beneficiary of the "contract" between the maintainers and the community, but my analysis on the situation is a bit more straightforward. The 40k datafiles improve my hobby, and the ability of many others to enjoy the hobby. If somebody is making some money off of it, then that's fine by me. You can't deny that their work makes the community better, even if only for the people that buy AB.

If your concern is that the maintainers are working hard for a monetary gain that LW is the only recipient of, well, that's just how it sometimes works.

That said, you do bring up a good point: if I'm not willing to develop datafiles, do I really have room to complain? Well, it's true that I have no interest in producing datafiles for AB, but I'll admit I have toyed with the idea of creating stylesheets for army building for Calc/Excel. As an academic question, would people be interested in that?

Edit: Whoo hoo! 100 Posts and a new title, hot dawg!


I'd be interested to see the results of such a product, but I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't reinvent the wheel. The AB stuff works really, really well for me.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 20:08:23


Post by: Bignutter


Polonius wrote:
I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.




I suppose I should point out my confusion that the "other camp" in this arguement are pretty much saying the same about GW and their actions... although no-one seems to be jumping at the fact that the tired all "evil GW" arguements seem to be coming up again that just seem silly.

It would appear GW and LW didn't make a business deal- regardless of what happened- some people see this as GW screwing LW over, some see this as LW being greedy- I see it as something that simply didn't make sense with the moves GW have been making and thus didn't fit with the business model- Does this make either party wrong/evil/horrible? Hell no- so why are people making it out as such?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 20:14:57


Post by: pakman


I just checked the site today and it mentions that there is some disagreement between Army Roster and GW and GW is telling them to shut the operation down.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 20:20:12


Post by: Polonius


Bignutter wrote:
Polonius wrote:
I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.




I suppose I should point out my confusion that the "other camp" in this arguement are pretty much saying the same about GW and their actions... although no-one seems to be jumping at the fact that the tired all "evil GW" arguements seem to be coming up again that just seem silly.

It would appear GW and LW didn't make a business deal- regardless of what happened- some people see this as GW screwing LW over, some see this as LW being greedy- I see it as something that simply didn't make sense with the moves GW have been making and thus didn't fit with the business model- Does this make either party wrong/evil/horrible? Hell no- so why are people making it out as such?


Well, you might be right, although I'd hazard to say if you read through the entire thread you'll see more malice towards LW than towards GW. In all fairness on this account, AB is simply the far better product than the IAL was, and an officially licensed AB would have been a very good thing for the hobby, IMO. I think that any anti-Gw rhetoric has been pretty mild (and perhaps deserved in hindsight) and directed towards a specific decision, while the anti-AB language has been pretty persistent and widly applied to the product, the company, the companies owner, and the datafile maintainers.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 20:21:11


Post by: Buzzsaw


A quick question Polonius, not to be overly inquisitive, but are you an attorney? I'm not trying to engage in a diploma fight, but some of the legal terms you are using are being used in a fashion I find somewhat unusual. Although, in all fairness, it's been my experience that most attorneys understanding of things outside of their own practice areas is usually somewhat vague. I'll hold off on elaborating my problems with their IP "solution" till I know the appropriate level of jargon to indulge in.

Polonius wrote:
Buzzsaw wrote:You're engaged in a faulty bit of logic there: Putting aside that I did not dispute they help the community, the point is that unlike the example I gave of the EJ forum community, who provide assistance that is truly free, the AB file contributors are providing free services for a for-profit company. The fact that many people appreciate it isn't really important to the fact that the community isn't the only party benefiting, stated more plainly;

If AB datafile creators used Excel/Calc to develop their stylesheets: the community as a whole benefits, with no drawbacks or fees, as the programs are either available for free or already owned by the community.

If AB datafile creators produce files for AB: a portion of the community benefits, Lone Wolf benefits, but that portion that receives any benefit must buy Lone Wolf's product to access the benefit. The only pure beneficiary is Lone Wolf.


Again, you seem overly concerned with the windfall to LW in this analysis. That AB sales are primarily because of the 40k datafiles is not the controlling factor. The maintainers provide their service to enable those people how own AB with 40k files. Maybe a redrawing of what is meant by community is necessary, but they certainly provide a huge service to AB customers. The analogy I would draw is to mutliplayer maps for FPS games: they dramatically increase the value of the game, yet people create them to benefit the people who own the game, not the company that makes the FPS. That the FPS's author benefits is a windfall, not the goal.

Additionally, I'm kind of curious when you keep bringing up open source solutions from other sources if such a solution would work for 40k? I would imagine it could, but it would have to be a pretty complicated spreadsheet, with tons of pages. It might, just might, actually be easier for the creators of the datafiles to work in AB than in excel. If that's true (and I have a hunch that it is), then I think it shifts the case less away from maintainers solely working to benefit LW and it's customers to simply using the best tool for the job.


Heh, take a gander at the Roguecraft spreadsheet I linked earlier and then wonder about complicated spreadsheets, heh.

I think your example of the FPS map-maker is a good one, but take a second look at it: the mapmakers increase the value of the FPS, but in a situation relative to the other FPS makers, they are essentially being provided with free work. That creates a situation where no-one can compete on a level playing field: even a superior product runs into the problem that their product may be better or cheaper, but they can't compete because the first FPS maker has convinced people to basically be unpaid employees.

Note that Rob as much as admits this in the post Ghaz originally linked: he flat out claims that LW drove GW out of the market for army builder programs.

Polonius wrote:
Buzzsaw wrote:
Well, yeah. Having compared them to Amway international I think it's fair to say I don't like their business model.

Although, in fairness, as an IP attorney the logistics of Lone Wolf's operations aren't exactly rubbing me the right way. That said, I really am a bit irked by this notion that giving free services to LW is a service to the community; it isn't, I don't know how much more plainly it can be said.


Why does AB bother you in regards to IP law? By my limited understanding, the tools used to allow copying can't really be regulated nearly as well as the actual acts of copying. Im also under the impression that the 40k datafile guys have a tacit understanding with GW. I find it difficult to believe that if GW wanted to, they couldn't shut down AB's 40k datafiles. The PR hit would probably offset any gain, but it's hard to pin GW as the victim of IP fraud when they have every means of shutting it down and don't.

I'm finding it suprising that you're having such a difficult time seperating the beneficiaries of their work. LW is a major third party beneficiary of the "contract" between the maintainers and the community, but my analysis on the situation is a bit more straightforward. The 40k datafiles improve my hobby, and the ability of many others to enjoy the hobby. If somebody is making some money off of it, then that's fine by me. You can't deny that their work makes the community better, even if only for the people that buy AB.


I can't, which is, of course, why I don't. But the issue isn't making people able to enjoy the hobby, after all, how could a piece of software decrease enjoyment of the hobby? I think also you're mistaking my attitude: I view the datafile maintainers not with anger, but with pity. And while I am annoyed at LW's tactics from a perspective of IP protection, I can't help but admire them: they not only have avoided paying for a license for any of the propertiues that they are marketed for, but they have convinced people to donate hundreds or thousands of hours of production and testing time!

Polonius wrote:If your concern is that the maintainers are working hard for a monetary gain that LW is the only recipient of, well, that's just how it sometimes works.

That said, you do bring up a good point: if I'm not willing to develop datafiles, do I really have room to complain? Well, it's true that I have no interest in producing datafiles for AB, but I'll admit I have toyed with the idea of creating stylesheets for army building for Calc/Excel. As an academic question, would people be interested in that?

Edit: Whoo hoo! 100 Posts and a new title, hot dawg!


I'd be interested to see the results of such a product, but I'm of the opinion that one shouldn't reinvent the wheel. The AB stuff works really, really well for me.


And here is what bugs me the most; "that one shouldn't reinvent the wheel" and "[t]he AB stuff works really, really well for me". Even for people inclined to develop open source solutions for this problem, there is no incentive because the target audience has already formed an attachment to AB. LW, again, gotta admire them, has convinced people that they should be paying for this even though it could be free.

Beyond that, if a real open source effort does get off the ground, these folks are vulnerable to the accusations by the AB crowd that they're trying to hurt LW's business... which will, of course, be true. Remember, LW's interests are not the same as the interests of the community, much as the two seem to get conflated. It's in the interest of the community to develope open-source solutions for army building, it is most emphatically not in LW's.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 20:35:58


Post by: Polonius


@ Buzzsaw: I'm a 3L in law school, but I haven't taken any IP law at all. I'm going into Tax myself.

In my FPS example, I think that a developer that includes good mapbuilding tools and tries to develop an aftermarket community to build maps is being smart. Timing is key, but so is having the right blend of tools and support. AB has gained the fruits of the maintainers, but it could only have done so if the tools it provided worked well.

Why do you pity the maintainers? I think you underestimate the values of pride, problem solving, community building, and even control over something. I don't pity them any more than I pity anybody else that puts out free stuff onto the web.

I think you are right, in that LW would be hurt in any truly open source army building software. What I think is important to mention is that I think there's a higher argument to be made, in that I think it's good for the community for third party companies like LW to be able to make a profit in the hobby. Open source is great, but having retail products available is a good thing for me, and most hobby members. So, even if the maintainers and everybody help prop up LW's bottom line, that will help convince other companies to take the plunge with other products that are useful to hobbyists. I'm not saying LW deserves charity or that people that don't like the product should buy it. I'm merely saying that these small garage companies, like the FLGS, are small firms that deserve support from paying customers that like their product. If an open source product came along that beat out AB, well, that's competition for you. In the absence of such a product, I don't see supporting LW as a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 21:13:32


Post by: Buzzsaw


@ Polonius: I think, after digesting what you're saying, that in the end it comes down to a difference of opinion. That is to say, we have the same facts, we just are applying different sets of values to them. My opinion of LW is colored by their actions to the detriment of GW's IP. I believe that this detriment is factual, but it's not unreasonable to argue that it's also small, possibly inconsequential. Further coloring my opinion is a lot of time spent on the EJ forums before I got back into Warhammer.

When you've gotten used to the idea that monumental undertakings like Rawr and the Roguecraft spreadsheet are just given away, the idea that people pay for something that depends on user-generated content to exist as a functional tool is shocking.

Similarly, once you start seeing LW as a private enterprise interested in maximizing profit, it's hard to see the volunteers as anything other then at least slightly taken in. But, as you say, LW has also given them a structure for self-importance, for a kind of achievement and pride; look at the works that EJ maintains and you see efforts that are, perhaps more "pure", but also for that far more onerous undertakings.

Also, let's be completely honest here, all of these arguments are about something that, as was so accurately pointed out by MDG, is essentially a slightly better-looking improvement over pen and paper.

Do I have a different opinion of LW's legal status then others? Sure, but I don't work for GW, and in the end, even if GW shares my opinion, they've decided they have nothing to gain by pursuing legal action, so my opinion and $2.50 will get me on the NY subway. If I think the datafile makers are being taken advantage of, well, I'm not yet so egotistical to imagine my opinion of them will really matter to their self-esteem.

Finally, for all my talk about open source solutions, the fact is I'm not about to undertake providing a replacement for the services the datafile maintainers are giving. If by happenstance I happen to make a template I find useful for army building I'll post it on Dakka, but it's... low, shall we say, on my list of priorities. The AB maintainers are putting their time where there priorities are, and my misgivings about LW doesn't take that away from them.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/02 21:24:09


Post by: Polonius


Thanks for posting that, It makes more sense now.

I think some of your issue might be from seeing the effort being poured into work that requires a buy-in when that community effort could instead apply to a completely open source solution. That makes sense to me, I just don't see the $40 buy-in as much for me, but it is a lot more than free, and the multi-functionality is something that I really enjoy. I've used AB for 40k, fantasy, bloodbowl, epic, chainmail, LotR, flames of war, etc.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/03 03:52:33


Post by: Ghaz


Trying to claim that Lone Wolf has somehow 'conned' the maintainers into making the datafiles for 40K is akin to saying GW 'conned' first Russ and the Yakface into running Dakka Dakka. That most assuredly is NOT the case.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/03 04:29:47


Post by: Steelmage99


Buzzsaw wrote:... Beyond that, is the "convenience" of AB seriously worth paying for?




Yes, I'd like to think so. The tweaking of an armylist ("I'll takes one less Sternguard here and skip Extra Armour there, so I can fit in an Attack Bike") is infinitly easier in Army Builder than when using pen and paper. Not to mention the courtesy you extend to your opponent as you hand him a readable and pleasent looking armylist.

As you have chosen to use anecdotal evidence, I will follow suit. The one time I played against an opponent using a free Exel sheet downloaded of the net, it was filled to mistakes. There was a complete disregard for pointvalues, FOC and rules in general.

Does this mean that I should completely disregard Exel as a armybuilding tool? Does this mean that I should expound on its weaknesses any chance I get?

Of course not. I will look over an opponents armylist, not matter the origin of said list, with the same critical eye towards validity, tactics and feel.


I sounds to me like, that you would be more suspicious of an Army Builder armylist than you would of a scrawled, water damaged, unreadable, "back-of-a-cerealbox", handwritten armylist. This is just odd.


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/03 04:34:44


Post by: Steelmage99


Ghaz wrote:Trying to claim that Lone Wolf has somehow 'conned' the maintainers into making the datafiles for 40K is akin to saying GW 'conned' first Russ and the Yakface into running Dakka Dakka. That most assuredly is NOT the case.


And trying to claim that Army Builder is "useless", is like trying to claim that radios are useless.....and cars.....and Exel.....and computers........
These are all items that require the input of a secondary source not related to the original manufacturer.

But I am sure that the "anti-Army Builder" crowd doesn't any any of those either, right?.......right?.....hallo?!?


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/03 04:40:00


Post by: Ghaz


Uh, I'm not trying to claim that Army Builder is 'useless'. Quite the contrary, considering I'm the datafile maintainer's rules judge It is quite useful, when used as intended (with a codex).


ArmyRoster.com @ 2009/01/03 05:06:31


Post by: yakface



While this discussion is certainly interesting, it really is a bit off-topic from the News of Army Roster.com shutting their site down.

As such, I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread. If you wish to discuss Army Builder further, feel free to start another thread in the Dakka Discussions forum.