23704
Post by: ceorron
Cool, thanks for the heads up.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
It still needs work. It's essentially the last version of 5th ed files with the Allies andFortifications. No way to set it for a second Detachment(that I see) and Wings for Hive Tyrants and Daemons MCs are still referring to "move as Jump Infantry" as opposed to Flying MCs.
1478
Post by: warboss
Is that for the 3.x versions or the 2.x versions of the program?
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
3.x, good sir, AFAIK
320
Post by: Platuan4th
warboss wrote:Is that for the 3.x versions or the 2.x versions of the program?
3.x, the AB40K Maintainer guys don't do 2.x anymore as far as I know. Aegis Defense Line is missing the options(Icarus, Quad-gun, etc.). Going to have to compile a list and e-mail them.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Huh, this one doesn't show up on their website at all. Thanks for the link.
39277
Post by: Son 0f Dorn
Where can we find the file with the above fixes addressed? Where is its author posting it?
24512
Post by: SonicPara
Third update since the flyers came out and still no entry for Stormtalon Gunship.
Por que Maria?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Since apparently I have to answer all of the questions since I posted it: 1. It is still listed as Warhammer 40k 5th edition. The links page hasn't had the title updated, but if you apply the file to AB, it comes up as it's own game system, it doesn't over write the 5th edition file. 2. I guarantee that the writers are well aware of the changes that still need to be made. Please be patient. This isn't the same as updating the file for a single army. Universal rules have to be amended in every army file. They WILL get to everything. I think this update was mainly to show that they are indeed working at it. Also, keep in mind that the people writing the files aren't paid to do so. They do it out of the kindness of their hearts and their love of the hobby. If you don't like the manner or speed in which they do it, you are more than welcome to create your own data files. Lastly, please don't kill me, I'm just the messenger. Automatically Appended Next Post: SonicPara wrote:
Por que Maria?
This gave me a chuckle. EDIT: There is a site that the file makers maintain for 40k, can't remember the url. Also, the Supplement Files page: http://www.wolflair.com/rightframe.php?context=army_builder&page=supplemental_downloads will be updated with any new files. The key is to look at the date of the file, not the name(as this one was listed as 5th edition for some reason).
52215
Post by: spectreoneone
Aerethan wrote:
EDIT: There is a site that the file makers maintain for 40k, can't remember the url.
ab40k.org
Not a lot of answers, but does give insight into bug report tickets already reported. Some of the issues are already being addressed for next update release, but as of now, I haven't seen anything in relation to the inclusion of the Storm Talon in the data files.
11
Post by: ph34r
A rudimentary update, it would be nice if it was fully formed and all.
I haven't updated my AB in a while, so is anyone else pissed off that there is an ad in the middle of my program? I go to download an update to a program I pay a freakin yearly subscription to, and there is a fething ad? Seriously?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
ph34r wrote:A rudimentary update, it would be nice if it was fully formed and all.
I haven't updated my AB in a while, so is anyone else pissed off that there is an ad in the middle of my program? I go to download an update to a program I pay a freakin yearly subscription to, and there is a fething ad? Seriously?
I do manual updates these days, but I don't remember there being ads during auto updates 2 years ago. Maybe I ignored it. Either way, it's stupid.
The ads should have been placed when non subscribers update thru the program. That would have made sense.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
Aerethan wrote:
1. It is still listed as Warhammer 40k 5th edition. The links page hasn't had the title updated, but if you apply the file to AB, it comes up as it's own game system, it doesn't over write the 5th edition file.
Interesting. Either way, your link in the OP worked like a charm! Thanks again!
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
1.01 with several fixes is now available. Storm Talon is in. Hull Points are in. Some missing allied relationships have been fixed.
18410
Post by: filbert
Well, work continues apace over at ab40k.org
Here is another update - version 1.01:
http://www.ab40k.org/filebase.php?d=1&id=91
19148
Post by: Aerethan
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/ewwn686y2kh2zqo/AB40K6v1_02.ab?dl=1
Version 1.2 was released today.
The notes state that it will be the last update for the general release of 6th edition. Future updates would only be bug fixes until a new codex is out.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Damn, they did the daemons for fantasy but not for 40k 
38176
Post by: Griever
No 40k daemons update makes me a very sad panda.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
From what I said, this is the final GENERAL RULES release. Since Daemons got an update, the standard 30 days will likely apply before it can be updated.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Did they fix the Allied Detachment problem where they're still tracked as part of the primary detachment with regards to FoC slots?
11
Post by: ph34r
For some befuddling reason I still have to go through two menus just to change what allies I want to look at. Why?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Disclaimer:
I'm not in any way involved in the creation or design of these files. I link them here because some people were having trouble with auto updates, or they couldn't find them. I have no answers to why the file does X, or is missing Y.
For discussion or answers on these files, please visit www.ab40k.org
30508
Post by: Captain Avatar
I saw something disturbing in the 1.2 update.
The message section that displays on the download screen says that this will be "the last update" and that there will be no more need to support AB due to there not being any more 40K updates.
WTF???!!!!
Has anyone else noticed this message?
Is this an artifact from the end of 5th ed updates or is AB no longer going to update their products that apply to GW games?
Sorry that I did not get a screen shot, but if this is as the message read, Then this is some big news.
Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated.
Thanks
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
Interesting. It seems AB40K is shutting down.
18509
Post by: endtransmission
I stand corrected. That's a shocker...
Though I'm sure someone else will pick up the work
19148
Post by: Aerethan
From AB40K.org: The latest file version is 1.02 will only be available for short time via the auto-update function within Army Builder. It will not be available for download from this site. It will not be available via email requests from any AB40K maintainer; do NOT bother to ask, it will not happen, you will not get it.
As you can imagine by the above statements, there will be no further updates to this project. There will be no further work done on the files, nor will there be any conversation here on this website on updating the files or help in understanding or helping to "fix" issues that remain in the files as of now, or anytime in the future. Indeed, I do not expect to see a website here much longer given this.
On behalf of both myself and the maintainers of the AB40K files, of the present and the past, I sincerely thank you for your support throughout the many years that this project has endured.
This file requires Army Builder 3.2d or higher, version 3.1 is no longer supported.
Please do not post any bug reports unless you are running the latest file and any applicable hotfixes. Also, the in program Warhammer 40K 5E FAQ (reached by Menubar under Help) is being regularly maintained and may answer some of your questions/problems.
Don't expect answers to your questions, let alone fixes or updates. That site and those involved in it are closed as of today(site exists but the last update file was today). They are closing up shop. I agree that someone will indeed pick up where they left off, especially since they wouldn't need to write an all new data file for the system. BTW, UltraPrime, thank you for all the work you do on WFB. btw Mark of Tzeentch with 4+ ward armor and a shield still comes up in the ward window as only a 6+ for the parry save instead of the 3+ that it would get all the time.
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
Aerethan wrote:
BTW, UltraPrime, thank you for all the work you do on WFB.
btw Mark of Tzeentch with 4+ ward armor and a shield still comes up in the ward window as only a 6+ for the parry save instead of the 3+ that it would get all the time.
This is all very worrying. So far, I have not been contacted, so I'm carrying on as usual for now. And that Ward issue is a huge bugbear! I think I've sorted it, then it causes another Ward rule to misbehave. I'm secretly hoping the Mark of Tzeentch changes in the next WoC book...
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Sadly I don't know squat about data file coding.
Is there not a way to make parry save wards lose priority over other wards?
Perhaps if it can't be fixed then relegate the parry save to unit notes and remove it from the stat line?
It is quite wierd that the MoT and shield work fine with the armor by themselves, but when combined it freaks out.
34947
Post by: dbgoldberg323
--ninja'd---
Sad to see AB40k Maintainers go. I use Army Builder every single day because of them. I'm hoping whatever team picks up the pieces does at least half as good of a job.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I imagine someone somewhere will pick it up.
I can't imagine too many future sales or license renewals for AB without 40K and WFB support...
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Version 1.03 is now available through AB. The Allied FOC issue where it would fail validation if you had a 3rd HQ or 4th Elite, for example, has been fixed.
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
Am I missing how to double FoC for 2,000+ games, or has it not been implemented?
Edit. Yeah, was just me missing it...
1128
Post by: shaggai
Just wanted to post briefly, and mention that the files are being updated albeit slower than what we would like. Unfortunately that's to be expected as there are so many spare hours in the day and only so many of them can be spend working in the files before you just get plain exhausted.
The files mainly have to be modified in three distinct ways: 1) is the main complaince with the 6E FAQs (such as the usual errata, corrections, or interpretation issues that sometime get closed)., 2) Updates to make the system work under 6E rules (such as specifc bonuses based on type of power and force weapon, frag grenades being bundled up into assault grenades, allies, etc.), and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references).
As you can imagine the amount of changes needed can stretch from a single unit getting one line of code rearraged to the complete addition or modification of a basic "component" of the system (such as the allies and new FoC).
We are also working on issues that appear on our bug tracker, and honestly a lot of those reports touch on items that we are working on and correcting at the same time as the reports come in. Other times correcting the issue requires a immense change or addition and isn't a quick fix fix so hold patience from reporting an issue may not have gotten fixed after a few days or a couple of weeks...
That's all for now.
52215
Post by: spectreoneone
shaggai wrote:Just wanted to post briefly, and mention that the files are being updated albeit slower than what we would like. Unfortunately that's to be expected as there are so many spare hours in the day and only so many of them can be spend working in the files before you just get plain exhausted.
The files mainly have to be modified in three distinct ways: 1) is the main complaince with the 6E FAQs (such as the usual errata, corrections, or interpretation issues that sometime get closed)., 2) Updates to make the system work under 6E rules (such as specifc bonuses based on type of power and force weapon, frag grenades being bundled up into assault grenades, allies, etc.), and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references).
As you can imagine the amount of changes needed can stretch from a single unit getting one line of code rearraged to the complete addition or modification of a basic "component" of the system (such as the allies and new FoC).
We are also working on issues that appear on our bug tracker, and honestly a lot of those reports touch on items that we are working on and correcting at the same time as the reports come in. Other times correcting the issue requires a immense change or addition and isn't a quick fix fix so hold patience from reporting an issue may not have gotten fixed after a few days or a couple of weeks...
That's all for now.
 Keep up the good work! I know I appreciate it!
21604
Post by: Killjoy00
any idea when the White Dwarf Daemon updates will make it in?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references)
So weapon descriptions will no longer be in the list summary?
Half the reason for using AB is to avoid having to flip pages 50% of the time you are playing. Having those references included in the list makes things significantly easier.
This is different than the 5th edition files iirc, and is indicative of legal intervention from GW. Honestly, they need to just license it already. This is getting ridiculous, to the point where they'll throw a fit about stat lines being printed as well. It's a slippery slope here as GW tightens the leash.
There are workarounds of course, people printing up reference sheets that include the USR's and weapon rules relevant to the list they are using. That of course is a decent bit of work.
The less information that AB can present, the less useful it becomes, which is something I don't want to see happen.
43065
Post by: Krisken
 Aerethan wrote:and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references)
So weapon descriptions will no longer be in the list summary?
Half the reason for using AB is to avoid having to flip pages 50% of the time you are playing. Having those references included in the list makes things significantly easier.
This is different than the 5th edition files iirc, and is indicative of legal intervention from GW. Honestly, they need to just license it already. This is getting ridiculous, to the point where they'll throw a fit about stat lines being printed as well. It's a slippery slope here as GW tightens the leash.
There are workarounds of course, people printing up reference sheets that include the USR's and weapon rules relevant to the list they are using. That of course is a decent bit of work.
The less information that AB can present, the less useful it becomes, which is something I don't want to see happen.
You can always update this bit yourself, and to be honest it's quite easy to do so.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Huh. Interesting. I wonder if it's the list-building that was the issue, or the stat blocks and weapon descriptions that they decided to remove that were.
43065
Post by: Krisken
 daedalus wrote:Huh. Interesting. I wonder if it's the list-building that was the issue, or the stat blocks and weapon descriptions that they decided to remove that were.
My guess would be the USR's and specifics involving codex wide rules that make it easier to bypass needing the rule books (not that I think you could play without them just by using Army Builder).
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Stat lines and rules themselves are not copyrightable. The only thing that is "owned" in a game system are the mechanics of the game itself, which can be patented.
An example of the game mechanics are the To Hit and To Wound tables. Without those two things, the game doesn't function. Those two tables are a core mechanic of the game. Stat lines are arbitrary numbers in the manner presented in AB files. They are simply references for use in the tables. Item costs, stat lines, unit or weapon descriptions etc. All are not protected information.
USRs are all in the BRB. So are the two tables that comprise the crux of the game. You can't play the game without those tables. You need the BRB to use those tables. So from an ownership standpoint, you could argue that the lists are worthless without the BRB. Since you own the BRB for those tables, you also own a copy of the USR's being omitted here.
So if you MUST own the BRB to play the game, then making reference sheets of that book which you legally own should fall under fair use. If I can make backups of CD's or mixed CD's, I should be able to make mixed reference sheets of the rules that I legally own a copy of.
USR's are not protected by the games patents, nor are they copyrighted.
GW would claim ownership of the dice rolling mechanic if they thought they'd get away with it.
Now, ultimately the changes made are done at the discretion of those who make them. As pointed out, I could very well make my own. It just seems like the AB40k team is spending time doing these "compliance" changes that aren't actually needed.
60321
Post by: Curious
Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.
55578
Post by: kcwm
Curious wrote:Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.
This sums it up for me. It does suck to not have it on a handy print out, but the organization of the army and having the stats handy is what I use it. Hell, half of the time, I look up the USR in the book just to make sure I'm getting things right as I learn it.
As Krisken said, I'll go in and update what I need myself or make an easy reference sheet or two.
2690
Post by: Meep357
Curious wrote:Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.
Ditto - and it's not that hard to get a copy of the army summary (from the back of the codex / GW site) that has all the stats on it.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
The issue isn't stats. Those aren't protected information. They are arbitrary numbers when presented by themselves.
The issue is with having to STILL flip pages throughout a game to look up a rule, instead of having that rule already presented on your army list.
Army Builder has 2 things going for it:
1. Simplified list building. For that, you don't need stats or USR's. Just unit costs and options. AB does this wonderfully.
2. A printed out reference sheet specific to the army list you designed. The whole point of that is convenience. Anyone could print out an army list in a matter of minutes. But how many people hand write out the stats and rules for their army list.
Convenience is the entire point of the software. The less convenience it offers, the less people see a need for it.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If having the USR for your list in one handy spot then just type them up in word and print them out.
Army Builder is a list builder, not a cheat sheet.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 d-usa wrote:If having the USR for your list in one handy spot then just type them up in word and print them out.
Army Builder is a list builder, not a cheat sheet.
1. I'm not saying it needs to be a cheat sheet, but the convenience it ONCE offered is being taken away.
2. Not every list uses every USR. It would be a decent amount of extra work to write up a new cheat sheet of USR's for every army list I designed. Sure, I could do it, but it is one of those things that I paid AB to do for me(I understand that AB itself doesn't deliver the content, but the files at the time included the rule descriptions, and as such were a feature that was used in my decision to buy the software).
18249
Post by: Charax
um..unless I'm missing something, the whole "reference back to the rulebook/codex" thing isn't new, the 2.2 files had that put in for exactly the same reason. It appears that the maintainers lapsed back into bad habits by copying out the rules in full and are just returning to the status quo
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
I think this is interesting in that many people had begun to slam AB because of having too much information on the lists. AB reacted by implementing a tournament format that did away with all the stats and just had units and costs, spelling out the upgrades.
In my own lists I stopped including all the extra rules information and tried to keep my lists to a single page of units, stats, equipment and costs. When I go to a tourney I print out the list in that basic format and the bare bones tournament format and let my opponent choose which one he wants to see.
6135
Post by: HungryTaz
So it appears that Army Builder will continue to support 40K without the specific rules? My license just expired last week and this is the decider as to whether or not I renew.
I only care about using it to print a nice easy list of the stats and verify my point costs. I have no problem using a cheat sheet for the other stuff.
5357
Post by: battlematt
Thanks army builder, glad you are sticking around. GW has got to be the biggest pain in the butt to work with. Your product has made it easy to see all kinds of builds. My FLGS tourneys have been greatly improved with printed AB lists, cuts down on cheating. Thanks again.
2690
Post by: Meep357
With the files only be available through AB's update mechanic .... are we sure that GW's responsible and not Lone Wolf?
Seems to me Lone Wolf has the most to gain from the current predicament of the AB40k.
62614
Post by: TheDamnedOne
Useful Program none the less.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Meep357 wrote:With the files only be available through AB's update mechanic .... are we sure that GW's responsible and not Lone Wolf?
Seems to me Lone Wolf has the most to gain from the current predicament of the AB40k.
Lone Wolf is not responsible for the availability of the file in any way. I've linked it directly in the thread.
The only change in the files availability is that it is no longer downloadable from the AB40k site.
It is available from auto update, as well as the files page of the AB site, as well as here.
36
Post by: Moopy
So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.
What am I missing?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Moopy wrote:So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.
What am I missing?
For the answer to that, I'd wait until AB40K makes that announcement they mentioned in the other thread. They said they would explain what they could about it all some time next week.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Moopy wrote:So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.
What am I missing?
Intentionally doing something wrong or stupid (such as poking sleeping bears) isn't always the best solution.
36
Post by: Moopy
That bear isn't sleeping, it's looking in the kitchen window. If GW's going to attack people who make a product that helps play 40k, and has gone out of the way to make sure it doesn't compete/eclipse GW's products, I'm not pleased. When their actions devalue the product that I paid for, after years of being a-ok with what's going on, I move to pissed.
If AB is forced underground to keep going, then there's very little incentive to comply with any previous agreement, including waiting 1 month after a new codex is released.
Damn if this is isn't a stupid turn of events.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I did have hopes that this foreshadowed a licensing deal, but sadly that is not the case.
I know for a fact that AB40k files aren't going anywhere, but there are changes being made to it in order to prevent any possible legal action(i.e. compliance).
No one is going underground. It hasn't gotten that bad, at least not yet.
That said, you can bet your ass that if GW sued AB or the file creators, the internet would get pissed off and start doing underground files. There are already people doing that with ABv2 files since it is no longer supported. It wouldn't be any different with v3.
It has been long said that GW should just license with AB. It would be a win for everyone involved. But since when does GW do anything that would benefit anyone besides just themselves?
25927
Post by: Thunderfrog
f AB is forced underground to keep going, then there's very little incentive to comply with any previous agreement, including waiting 1 month after a new codex is released.
Hell yea. Call me a dirty thief, but it's actions like these on GW's behalf that push me to do things like making pdf codexes and BRBs. I know it won't affect them really, but in my mind I'm like...
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Aerethan wrote:I did have hopes that this foreshadowed a licensing deal, but sadly that is not the case.
I know for a fact that AB40k files aren't going anywhere, but there are changes being made to it in order to prevent any possible legal action(i.e. compliance).
No one is going underground. It hasn't gotten that bad, at least not yet.
That said, you can bet your ass that if GW sued AB or the file creators, the internet would get pissed off and start doing underground files. There are already people doing that with ABv2 files since it is no longer supported. It wouldn't be any different with v3.
It has been long said that GW should just license with AB. It would be a win for everyone involved. But since when does GW do anything that would benefit anyone besides just themselves?
I'm not sure that you or anyone else really wants that if you think about how it would work. Lonewolf almost lured me into buying HeroLab, for the purposes of running my Pathfinder campaign. Then I saw how they worked the exclusive licensed content.. Basically, you pay 29.99 for Hero Lab then pay anywhere between 10 and 20$ for content from every book you want access to. It gets up there pretty quick.
I can easily imagine paying for AB, 20 bucks a codex, 20 bucks for access to IA and Apoc units, 20 bucks for the right to print... well, you get the point. It would get pricey real quick.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
While of course here on dakka we can't publicly condone piracy, that pic did make me chuckle.
Also, that particular PDF was out 4 days after the book released. At least AB files take a month.
But I agree, such actions by GW put a bad taste in players mouths, making things like piracy flare up in a fit of spite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The licensing would need to be all inclusive at a single price in order for people to actually buy it.
If AB was $40 and the OFFICIAL 40k and fantasy files were $20 a year, then sure, I'd buy that. But I agree that if GW and AB compartmentalized the process, no one would use it and everyone would just use BS.
36
Post by: Moopy
Agreed. Even if AB didn't leave anything out of the files AT ALL, I'd still buy the codex.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Moopy wrote:That bear isn't sleeping, it's looking in the kitchen window. If GW's going to attack people who make a product that helps play 40k, and has gone out of the way to make sure it doesn't compete/eclipse GW's products, I'm not pleased. When their actions devalue the product that I paid for, after years of being a-ok with what's going on, I move to pissed.
If AB is forced underground to keep going, then there's very little incentive to comply with any previous agreement, including waiting 1 month after a new codex is released.
Damn if this is isn't a stupid turn of events.
First to clarify. There has never been any official agreement between GW and the Datafile Maintainers regarding anything in the files or how the files have been made available. The 1 month embargo has been an internal decision that has been made to help eliminate getting GW attention as the files are limited use for a month or so after each new release.
Secondly, the reasons of continuing to made decisions that would better comply with any sort of legal situation is more to protect the maintainer group than anything else. We enjoy making the datafiles, using the tool and creating lists, but see where our programming tendencies have maybe allowed for higher scrutiny from GW. The attempt now is to clear up any of that, making the files used for what they were intended(as Army list making tool) and less for what they were getting used for (a way to play 40k without actually owning any rulebooks).
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Thank you for your effort, Aerethan.
40962
Post by: Jardaddy
Thanks for posting updates 
12584
Post by: Dahlberg66
Noticed 1.05 is out is it getting tossed on dropbox?
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
1.06 is out now.
17816
Post by: coyotius
Aerethan, are these the same files that install if using the built-in updater in AB? Sorry for the dumb question.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
 coyotius wrote:Aerethan, are these the same files that install if using the built-in updater in AB? Sorry for the dumb question.
I believe it is, my auto updated just downloaded 1.6
19148
Post by: Aerethan
coyotius wrote:Aerethan, are these the same files that install if using the built-in updater in AB? Sorry for the dumb question.
Yes. The links I post here are the same links given on the AB data file downloads page. Some people(myself included) have expired licenses, so auto update doesn't work anymore. When the first 6th edition file went live some people here were having trouble locating it, so I've been mirroring the files here to make it a little easier and more accessible.
I check every few days for updates, but every now and then someone beats me to it and lets me know that a new file is out(like yesterday, I was gone all day when it was released).
Luckily maintaining this thread is quite effortless.
17816
Post by: coyotius
Thanks guys...I'm catching up on all the AB news after crawling out from under my rock and was wondering about the need to manually update. Question answered.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
As far as the AB40k.org group, I have confirmation that they are not quitting. They have implemented what they are calling "compliance" which gives page references for USR's and most(iirc) codex specific rules.
Technically the old files didn't actually infringe any patent for the game, but the compliance measures were added to lessen pressure from GW. Those changes were made after outside council, and should not be seen as the file writers buckling under pressure from GW to stop.
So fear not, the files will keep coming. Only now you have to page flip a lot more than in previous editions.
25927
Post by: Thunderfrog
"compliance measures were added to lessen pressure from GW"
"and should not be seen as the file writers buckling under pressure from GW"
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Thunderfrog wrote:"compliance measures were added to lessen pressure from GW" "and should not be seen as the file writers buckling under pressure from GW"
context and definitions are fun. The decision to add compliance was made after legal counsel, not by GW. GW threatened, so they adjusted their methods, not quit. And lessening pressure isn't the same as buckling. If they had buckled under the pressure, they wouldn't still be writing files. They responded to pressure being put on them, instead of closing shop. I should also add that I am in no way involved with the AB40k team. I just link the damn files.
5357
Post by: battlematt
I for one thank you for mirroring the files. this is a big help especially since I have a job and a 2 year old at home. Toddlers make gaming interesting.
47473
Post by: gigasnail
^ seconding, thank you ~
34130
Post by: disel24
thank you thank you
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
V1.07 is now available.
16876
Post by: BlueDagger
*HUG*
63671
Post by: Yuuichi_Trapspringer
Thank you Aerethan for doing what you do!
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Aerethan, +2
35071
Post by: Enigma Crisis
Do you think you will be able to update the Imperial Armor section for 40k to include the changes to some of the flyers from the Imperial Armor: Aeronautica?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Enigma Crisis wrote:Do you think you will be able to update the Imperial Armor section for 40k to include the changes to some of the flyers from the Imperial Armor: Aeronautica?
I'm not the author of the files, nor am I associated with them in any way. I just link the files here for convenience to Dakka users.
If you wish to discuss the files with the authors, register on www.ab40k.com and post on their forum, as I'm not sure how often they check Dakka, let alone my little thread here.
35071
Post by: Enigma Crisis
Aerethan wrote: Enigma Crisis wrote:Do you think you will be able to update the Imperial Armor section for 40k to include the changes to some of the flyers from the Imperial Armor: Aeronautica?
I'm not the author of the files, nor am I associated with them in any way. I just link the files here for convenience to Dakka users.
If you wish to discuss the files with the authors, register on www.ab40k.com and post on their forum, as I'm not sure how often they check Dakka, let alone my little thread here.
Ah ok thanks for the info 
46006
Post by: Bluewulf
thanks Aerethan
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
Many thanks for posting these updates, after an extremely useless interaction with "customer support" from army builder I will no longer purchase a license from them and will just manually update
65111
Post by: ekalther
Why wait for Aerethan when you can get these as soon as they are released? 
AB40k no longer slap them up on their site anymore and only available to licenced AB user via auto-update. 
Well they missed one thing. Why not check Army Builders own supplements download page -> http://www.wolflair.com/rightframe.php?context=army_builder&page=supplemental_downloads 
Scroll down and you'll see 40k 6th ed.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Those are the exact files that I link to here, and I do them the same day that they are released. I link them here for ease of access to Dakka users. Every single link here I've posted has been from the supplements page.
One reason for this thread is for those without auto update to know when there is an update. They can just exalt or subscribe to the thread and see in the title if there has been an update recently.
I don't claim to have any kind of special access to the files, or some secret source for them. This thread is for convenience only.
But thanks for making it sound like I'm way behind the curve on timely updates.
21604
Post by: Killjoy00
Forget him, Aerethan. Thanks a bunch for your work - I know it makes things a lot easier for me.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Just want to let you know I appreciate this. It's very easy and convenient to get it here. I check here way more often than wolf lair.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Same here - there is absolutely NO harm in posting the update links here, and in fact, I find it quite helpful!
So, thanks!
3612
Post by: amrogers3
So, just to make sure I am not missing anything here... if I have a licensed copy of AB, then it will autoupdate any 40K game files that are released?
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
No, you have to renew your license every year, I think, to auto-update. Otherwise you can still have a legitimate licensed copy but you have to manually update.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 amrogers3 wrote:So, just to make sure I am not missing anything here... if I have a licensed copy of AB, then it will autoupdate any 40K game files that are released?
Army builder comes with a 1 year license. The ONLY thing that license really does is show that at some point you paid for the software, and it allows you to use Automatic Update on the program.
Once that year expires, you can still use the software for as long as you want. To continue using Auto Update after that year is up, you'll need to renew the license which is like $12 and IMO not worth the money.
You do need a valid license to upgrade to new versions of AB should any be released, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to upgrade. I'm still using 3.3 with an expired license because the files I use still support 3.3. If the day comes where those files require 3.4+ then I'll renew my license for it.
Otherwise, you can just update your game files manually which is quite easy, and with threads like this one the files are readily available. I do plan on making a WFB thread for files as soon as there is another update for it.
Understand that an expired license does not take away your ability to use the software ever. The license is just for auto updates.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
its also important to note that your license is ALWAYS 1 year from your date of purchase...so if you buy March 2000, dont renew in March 2001 then wait till Jan 2002 you'll end up paying for another 1 year license which will actually run out in March 2002
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Indeed, I bought my license in September 2010, so if I wanted to renew I'd have to renew 3 years to make up for the last 2 that lapsed.
Which is stupid.
As it stands, I only use 3 game files, and only 2 of those are ever updated(Mordheim is updated perhaps every 6 years, the previous file for it was from 2006). Since 2 files are quite easy to keep track of, I just update manually, checking the files page every couple of days.
I then offer the file links here for sake of ease, as people can just exalt or subscribe to the thread and see rather easily if there is an update in the thread title.
So if you are a regular Dakka browser, you'll always have the updates available here.
64623
Post by: Firstborn
ETA on when the new Chaos Space Marines will be updated into the files?
It will make my life so much easier.......
16698
Post by: andrewm9
Firstborn wrote:ETA on when the new Chaos Space Marines will be updated into the files?
It will make my life so much easier.......
The minimum time on the new updates is 1 month after the release date. It can take longer since its done by volunteers and not Lone Wolf. You know this info is covered on the data file's website www.ab40k.org.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Well, the original agreement was 30 days MINIMUM from a books release.
But with GW's shenanigans of late, the file creators don't really need to bend to GW demands. They've had legal counseling on what can be included in the files, hence the "compliance" changes.
The stat lines, names and unit costs are not protected. Names can be trademarked, but that doesn't apply here as there isn't a product using those trademarks in the same market. Stat lines and unit costs are arbitrary numbers without the core rules mechanics which are the only protectable parts of GW games.
34130
Post by: disel24
Does any one know if there is a way to add what the special rules say into an army list manually? It seems I'm too slow to figure it out myself
19370
Post by: daedalus
There absolutely is. The problem is that you have to add them back every new revision.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Honestly the easiest thing I can think of is to make a spreadsheet with all the USR's and what not, then when you have the list printed you just copy and paste the relevant USR's to notepad and print those out.
Not as ideal as AB integration, but less hassle overall.
34060
Post by: Mohoc
1.8 is up.
Lone Wolf Link:
http://www.wolflair.com/rightframe.php?context=army_builder&page=supplemental_downloads
Direct link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/p9tj60qtj3oz5nr/AB40K6v1_08.ab?dl=1
It has some issues with CSM though. They will have to fix those quickly. Chosen equipment seems messed up and their allies are broken. IA units don't show if enabled.
34130
Post by: disel24
daedalus wrote:There absolutely is. The problem is that you have to add them back every new revision.
I'd still love to know how it's done.. please
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Updated with current version.
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
 disel24 wrote: daedalus wrote:There absolutely is. The problem is that you have to add them back every new revision.
I'd still love to know how it's done.. please
Well, you get the ABCreator as part of the package. Use that to open the .dat file of whichever race you wish to edit. Look through the 'items' and 'options', find the entry you want to edit and add notes there! The principle really is as simple as that, but the work involved can take some time. And as has been mentioned, will be written over whenever the files are updated. You really are better off creating an independant reference sheet.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
The current Chaos one let's you change out each weapon for a daemonic weapon on the Lord. Not sure that's how that's suppose to work...
42971
Post by: Kal-El
Cool so army builder is still going! I thought it was done!
19370
Post by: daedalus
UltraPrime wrote:
Well, you get the ABCreator as part of the package. Use that to open the .dat file of whichever race you wish to edit. Look through the 'items' and 'options', find the entry you want to edit and add notes there! The principle really is as simple as that, but the work involved can take some time. And as has been mentioned, will be written over whenever the files are updated. You really are better off creating an independant reference sheet.
That's basically the gist of it. I have a background in programming, and I still find that it's sort of an arcane pita to modify. I plusone to the idea of creating your own reference sheet.
1464
Post by: Breotan
Aerethan wrote:Indeed, I bought my license in September 2010, so if I wanted to renew I'd have to renew 3 years to make up for the last 2 that lapsed.
Which is stupid.
You guys make it sound like there some mystical security feature present which prevents you from installing a brand new copy with a brand new license completely unrelated to your old one. I mean, how is AB going to know who you are if you put in a different email address after downloading a copy? It isn't that hard to get a new hotmail account, is it?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Breotan wrote: Aerethan wrote:Indeed, I bought my license in September 2010, so if I wanted to renew I'd have to renew 3 years to make up for the last 2 that lapsed.
Which is stupid.
You guys make it sound like there some mystical security feature present which prevents you from installing a brand new copy with a brand new license completely unrelated to your old one. I mean, how is AB going to know who you are if you put in a different email address after downloading a copy? It isn't that hard to get a new hotmail account, is it?
For $40. The renewal for me would have been $25, so it would have been cheaper. The license fee is $12.5 /year, not $40.
The only real trouble happens if you don't still have an installed copy of 3.3, as you can't download it anymore(not that I could find at least). Meaning that going without a license isn't an option if you don't back up the program.
Fun fact, you don't need to install it. Once you have it installed, you can copy the entire folder and use it on any other computer without reinstalling or updating, though you'll still need to tell it your original license key to get out of demo mode.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Aerethan, you do always have the ability to download the last licensed version AB. You do the from the support website after viewing your license details. There is a link on that page. This was recently discussed on lonewolfs website as well. Not sure the exact page, but I know they just told someone how to get the latest version they licensed.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 jlong05 wrote:Aerethan, you do always have the ability to download the last licensed version AB. You do the from the support website after viewing your license details. There is a link on that page. This was recently discussed on lonewolfs website as well. Not sure the exact page, but I know they just told someone how to get the latest version they licensed.
I wandered that site for about an hour looking for 3.3 and never found it. Every single link to a download took me to the 3.4 file, which doesn't even have any changes from 3.3 for PC.
As it stands, if anyone needs 3.3 I could just compress it and email it to them, but it will only run as demo until you put in your license info.
3.2 was easy to find, which is useless as most data files no longer support 3.2.
64623
Post by: Firstborn
You guys are so awesome! CSM FTW!
Thanks guys, your efforts are really appreciated.
26818
Post by: Seriphis
Well i just dl 1.09 rules so title to be updated yet again...
32354
Post by: Yojiro
Out of curiosity (and I know this is somewhat off topic) Anyone know if it's possible to run AB from say... a USB pen? (I'm not very IT knowledgeable, I admit.)
19370
Post by: daedalus
I'd wager a guess not. The way the licensing works, it would have to be reactivated on each computer you plug it into, and you can only reactivate it so many times.
You'd have to encapsulate it in a virtual machine that you kept on the USB drive if you wanted to pull that off, which would require probably a good 5-10 GB to do, minimum, and a decent amount of technical know-how.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 Yojiro wrote:Out of curiosity (and I know this is somewhat off topic) Anyone know if it's possible to run AB from say... a USB pen? (I'm not very IT knowledgeable, I admit.)
The software will run from a flash drive, but it will run as a demo.
2.2 you could do that since the license could be obtained with a keygen that saved into the install, but 3.0+ requires online registration for the keys, and you only get 2 devices at a time iirc.
11
Post by: ph34r
It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
 ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
Seems to be working OK for me.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
If you have found a bug, report it on the site: http://www.ab40k.org/ and it will be addressed in a timely fashion. They release the files ASAP because otherwise people are bitching that it isn't out fast enough. Also allot of times there are user errors, not errors in the files themselves, that they can help you address.
11
Post by: ph34r
UltraPrime wrote: ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
Seems to be working OK for me.
Pray tell then, where is the VotLW button? I'm not exactly new to Army Builder. http://i.imgur.com/98f5R.png http://i.imgur.com/Dr6Af.png
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NecronLord3 wrote: ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
If you have found a bug, report it on the site: http://www.ab40k.org/ and it will be addressed in a timely fashion. They release the files ASAP because otherwise people are bitching that it isn't out fast enough. Also allot of times there are user errors, not errors in the files themselves, that they can help you address.
I wouldn't describe it as a "bug" unless this is indeed some freak code error. The option simply is not there for any unit I have checked.
EDIT: It seems that there are in fact a large number of bugs in this release. I guess I will just reference the ab40k site.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
I can select VotLW units like Raptors, CSM and Dark Apostle. What units are you trying?
8230
Post by: UltraPrime
Don't know what to say. The options are there for me. I suggest deleting files manually and reinstalling.
11
Post by: ph34r
Arschbombe wrote:I can select VotLW units like Raptors, CSM and Dark Apostle. What units are you trying?
UltraPrime wrote:Don't know what to say. The options are there for me. I suggest deleting files manually and reinstalling.
It turns out it was one of about a dozen bugs, not in fact missing features. If you have the Competition Output formatting option selected under roster rules, it mysteriously deletes many unit options.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Competition output works wonky for sisters too, leads to many validation errors because of weapon options suddenly being not allowed.
1316
Post by: jlong05
ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
Oh my. May I ask what you paid for those data files they provided you. Maybe you should demand a refund. I mean who on earth would think its right to release incomplete work as if it was fully complete. The arrogance.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
jlong05 wrote: ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
Oh my. May I ask what you paid for those data files they provided you. Maybe you should demand a refund. I mean who on earth would think its right to release incomplete work as if it was fully complete. The arrogance.
The sheer gall. how dare you! I demand that your free work be better, faster, and better from the previous amount of better that I just demanded.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Aerethan wrote:
The sheer gall. how dare you! I demand that your free work be better, faster, and better from the previous amount of better that I just demanded.
Damn, you caught me...
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Thank you!
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
V 1.11 is out
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
jlong05 wrote: ph34r wrote:It seems like they decided not to include Veterans of the Long War for CSM. Or power weapons for Chosen Terminators. I wish they would implement all the rules before releasing.
Oh my. May I ask what you paid for those data files they provided you. Maybe you should demand a refund. I mean who on earth would think its right to release incomplete work as if it was fully complete. The arrogance.
This is a sucky stupid argument.
If those files weren't available this product wouldn't sell. The fact that AB manages to have a legion of stupid people that do gak for them for free and therefore allows AB to make wheelbarrows of money off the back of their free labor amazes me. It is implied that these files are available for your use - AB would not have this product to sell if the files weren't available because how many people are going to write their own files? Iff AB cannot guarantee the quality of the datafiles when they are released then maybe they should not have such an unethical business model.
Seriously, how many other companies have such money making products where the whole success of the product comes off the unpaid labor of others. And yes, I understand why they have to do it. Doesn't make it right tho. If it wasn't for the data file writers this product would be practically worthless to the majority of its users.
The fact that AB keep tinkering with the licensing model to make even more money each time makes me laugh. And people continue to support them {shakes head}.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Wolflair simply takes advantage of lost opportunities that GW dropped the Ball on. GW had good army building software that they just stopped updating and didn't see the lost revenue they threw away by not maintaining or replacing the software. GW could crush AB in a day by dedicating some resources to build official software using the model they had previously and sell it at half the price of AB.
49666
Post by: REDEATH
Army Builder 6th edition rules v1.12 is out. UPDATED 1-21-2013
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/zv4yr497hb9svyu/AB40K6v1_12.ab?dl=1
19148
Post by: Aerethan
ty
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
Has anyone in the 40k area indicated if they were working on a HH file for AB?
Doesn't seem like a small task, so I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Do you mean the IA book? I'm not sure what plans if any there are for a file that includes it.
www.ab40k.org would be where to ask that.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Thanks allot!
I still can't figure out why the AB authors are incapable of fixing the 6E Psychic discipline issue with GK. They still have the option to give Dread Knights and GK characters Psychic powers even after the FAQ clarified only Librarians and Inquisitors can use them. Really simple and has been reported for like 4-5 versions of the files and still not fixed.
34060
Post by: Mohoc
NecronLord3 wrote:Thanks allot!
I still can't figure out why the AB authors are incapable of fixing the 6E Psychic discipline issue with GK. They still have the option to give Dread Knights and GK characters Psychic powers even after the FAQ clarified only Librarians and Inquisitors can use them. Really simple and has been reported for like 4-5 versions of the files and still not fixed.
Because they have one person fixing several data files. That single person might not have noticed or had to push out a update quickly because of things like terminator champions not being able to choose their weapons upgrades. But you are rught, it needs fixing. Hopefully they will do so soon.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Mohoc wrote: NecronLord3 wrote:Thanks allot!
I still can't figure out why the AB authors are incapable of fixing the 6E Psychic discipline issue with GK. They still have the option to give Dread Knights and GK characters Psychic powers even after the FAQ clarified only Librarians and Inquisitors can use them. Really simple and has been reported for like 4-5 versions of the files and still not fixed.
Because they have one person fixing several data files. That single person might not have noticed or had to push out a update quickly because of things like terminator champions not being able to choose their weapons upgrades. But you are rught, it needs fixing. Hopefully they will do so soon.
I understand they have limited people working on these. But isn't that why they have the forum to report bugs and errors. They release the files, we playtest them and find things that need corrections, and they can run through the GW FAQs as they aren't really released so frequently that they can't be kept up with.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
NecronLord3 wrote:Mohoc wrote: NecronLord3 wrote:Thanks allot!
I still can't figure out why the AB authors are incapable of fixing the 6E Psychic discipline issue with GK. They still have the option to give Dread Knights and GK characters Psychic powers even after the FAQ clarified only Librarians and Inquisitors can use them. Really simple and has been reported for like 4-5 versions of the files and still not fixed.
Because they have one person fixing several data files. That single person might not have noticed or had to push out a update quickly because of things like terminator champions not being able to choose their weapons upgrades. But you are rught, it needs fixing. Hopefully they will do so soon.
I understand they have limited people working on these. But isn't that why they have the forum to report bugs and errors. They release the files, we playtest them and find things that need corrections, and they can run through the GW FAQs as they aren't really released so frequently that they can't be kept up with.
It's not only limited people, it's a zero resources program. None of them get paid, there is no budget. They do it in their spare time, and it eats into their other hobbies and interests. Also, the file editing software is readily available if you wanted to make the corrections yourself and submit it to them(or keep it for your onesy if you aren't the giving type).
1316
Post by: jlong05
If it has been reported and confirmed, rest assured that it will be fixed. As has been stated, the GK files are updated by the same person who also updates several other codexes. Us h as CSM and DA. This also is done in his free time and that seems to be getting less each new year.
As for the comment on other additions, please be aware that we can only add rules for books we own. Given the most recent price increases, GW is quickly pricing the majority of us out of the hobby. That being said, we are always willing to add rules but if we don't own the book it just isn't going to happen. I use to collect all the different codex books and IA books, but now that isn't the case. If someone however wishes to donate a book they wanted added, please feel free to let me know and I would be happy to get you in touch with the appropriate file author.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Every single report I've made on their forums has been either answered or fixed.
Maybe not immediately but they are always looked at eventually.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
 Shandara wrote:Every single report I've made on their forums has been either answered or fixed.
Maybe not immediately but they are always looked at eventually.
As have mine, with the exception of the GK 6e problems, which seems to be being ignored. I checked and this issue was reported 7 versions ago and hasn't even been replied to.
20450
Post by: jeremesh
Dark Angels update is out but unless I did something wrong, it doesnt let me choose any allies.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I will upload the link when I get home.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Yeah, you can choose DA allies from the new codex but the Actual DA can't choose any allies Oh well, at least I can build lists with them. Just ally them into other armies and ignore the error till it's fixed
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Looks like 1.14 is already out probably due to the DA Allie error.
20450
Post by: jeremesh
Unfortunately, still cant choose allies for Dark Angels. I'm sure they will fix it soon though.
49666
Post by: REDEATH
WOW another release 2 days later!
5357
Post by: battlematt
Once again thanks for the updates, this is a most welcome help.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Well they did break a lot of things, so I'm happy they fixed it so quick!
18080
Post by: Anpu42
expect a bunch more.
I still cant by a Plasma Cannon for my Tac Squads, a second Plasma Gun yes [No Complaints there], but no Plasma Cannon
24892
Post by: Byte
 Anpu42 wrote: expect a bunch more.
I still cant by a Plasma Cannon for my Tac Squads, a second Plasma Gun yes [No Complaints there], but no Plasma Cannon
Same for me, at least its the right points value. Also, does everybody have two DA selections when they try to select DA as allies. Annoying, but no big deal I guess.
49666
Post by: REDEATH
Army Builder 6th edition rules v1.15 is out. UPDATED 02/18/13
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/2lhd08l6nsm2ji3/AB40K6v1_15.ab?dl=1
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Updated
24892
Post by: Byte
So is this the update ability for those that don't subscribe?
34060
Post by: Mohoc
 Byte wrote:So is this the update ability for those that don't subscribe?
Yes.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Yes, TACs with Plasma Cannons YA!
49666
Post by: REDEATH
Army Builder 6th edition rules v1.16 is out. UPDATED 02/25/13. http://dl.dropbox.com/s/rt8s5v8xyp3l3zs/AB40K6v1_16.ab?dl=1
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Updated
24892
Post by: Byte
Got it.
49666
Post by: REDEATH
Army Builder 6th edition rules v1.17 is out. UPDATED 04/08/13
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/t0fzgd9q5kqs1yh/AB40K6v1_17.ab?dl=1
16427
Post by: TobyDog
any one got v 18 yet?
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Thanks!
16427
Post by: TobyDog
Sorry to be a pest any one got the current version
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Thank you.
This is much appreciated.
5357
Post by: battlematt
Yup, love you. In a 40k, skull and death sort of way.
6292
Post by: Valhallan42nd
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
And still no Iyanden.
26170
Post by: davethepak
So volunteer, and get to work on it.
Thank you to the updating team, who works on this for free and as a labor of love.
49666
Post by: REDEATH
FYI
Army Builder 6th edition 40K rules v1.27 is out. UPDATED 8/26/13
http://dl.dropbox.com/s/xsdyc662ram3vtg/AB40K6v1_27.ab?dl=1
38341
Post by: akkados
Someone please answer me how Black Templars now functions in AB. Will there be any updates?
52163
Post by: Shandara
It's usually 1 month+ before they include new books. We won't know till then how they do it.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
This thread is just a link mirror for those who don't have auto updates.
All books for GW are min 1 month after release.
Lastly, if you have questions about the files themselves, the AB40K.org site is where to ask, since they make the files.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
So any clue to when the update with the new Codex" Space Marines is coming out?
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Anpu42 wrote:So any clue to when the update with the new Codex" Space Marines is coming out?
I think the SM book is going to be quite difficult to put together for the AB team. The codex in effect has several different army lists, unlike the last codex where picking a specific character made your whole list different this time around it would almost be best for AB to go with Codex: Space Marines-Iron Hands and then Codex: Space Marines- Imperial Fists etc etc which is probably a lot more work. While it will make using the allies function chapter to chapter easier it will make the actual AB software more complex and larger on a certain level. I think the SM update may take a lot longer than normal.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
We're at just under 2 months since the last update. I understand it's a lot of work, but even on their own site the writers have given no status update on where things stand.
While we all understand that it's volunteer work, this long wait has shed a bad image on AB when compared to things like Battlescribe.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Do we know why it is taking so long?
Can they just put it out as it is, if the units themselves are working?
I assume the hold-up is the chapter stuff. Telion cannot be put in an army led by Kantor any more, etc. Drop that, if it's taking time, and put in comments instead.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Usually:
a) someone on the dev team must buy the codex
b) they must have time to do stuff
c) they have to figure out how every option interacts
d) have to solve technical problems or find workarounds around AB limitations (of which there are many)
They may have decided to make a workable chapter tactics-based list instead of releasing something half-done and having to re-do it all.
It's free, I can wait.
And there were some anonymous posters on their dev board posting bugs like 'Why isn't it done yet?' basically, which does tend to demotivate people working for free.
34060
Post by: Mohoc
Shandara wrote:Usually:
a) someone on the dev team must buy the codex
b) they must have time to do stuff
c) they have to figure out how every option interacts
d) have to solve technical problems or find workarounds around AB limitations (of which there are many)
They may have decided to make a workable chapter tactics-based list instead of releasing something half-done and having to re-do it all.
It's free, I can wait.
And there were some anonymous posters on their dev board posting bugs like 'Why isn't it done yet?' basically, which does tend to demotivate people working for free.
Lets add error checking and bug fixing to the list. The AB40K team has really stepped up their quality control over the last few month. In addition, the same team is currently working on the Horus Heresy Project and according to their forums were planing on releasing it at the same time as the Codex: Space Marines update.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
I was not complaining, just wondering?
25839
Post by: Kolath
I have been eagerly checking their site and FB feed for a few weeks now. OverwatchCNC is spot on. The C:SM book seems deceptively simple at first (add a few units, tweak some stats). But the whole chapter tactics system is a MASSIVE change to how the AB file works. Because the choice of tactics does a lot of different things such as:
1. Unlocking access to certain units
2. Restricting access to certain special characters
3. Adds Special Rules to every unit
From what I know about how AB works, this is not an easy thing to code. That is the main reason it is taking so long. (That plus the usual 'its a volunteer effort' yadda yadda).
79160
Post by: Ugin, the Owl King
Everyone keeps saying AB is free. You can download the software for free but you are supposed to pay for a license. If you haven't paid, then it's pirated, and you certainly have no right to complain.
I like Lone Wolf products. I have used AB for many years. I contributed to the Realm Works kickstarter (which is now noticeably behind schedule, and about which the dev team has VERY CONSPICUOUSLY stopped communicating updates an entire month ago).
So it is with a heavy heart that I defend the right of myself and others to complain about a product that I paid for. I bought an AB license because I expect a timely release of new materials (a month or a bit more). If it's taking longer because of some difficulty, they should communicate that difficulty on their website instead of mocking anonymous for asking when the update will arrive.
Seriously, an anonymous asked where the SM codex was and instead of answering, they rudely referred the user to their FAQ page (which states the policy that they attempt to release new rules a month after GW publication). The only reason I was on the site was because I was curious about a release date. The message I take from this is that Lone Wolf's AB40k dev team thinks I am a shmuck for wanting to know when the release is scheduled.
There's no expected release date listed listed, and there's no legitimate explanation for the delay for a product I feel like I paid for (when I paid for the license). Sorry, I don't feel bad for Lone Wolf.
18410
Post by: filbert
I feel compelled to point out that Lone Wolf don't have a 40K dev team, nor any other game system dev team as far as I know. They develop the software and the software alone, the data files are all community produced. It's a small point but an important distinction.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Yeah, not really worried about it. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't also adapting the system to handle supplements since those seem to be coming out swift and hard lately.
Overall I easily get the $25 I paids worth of value out of the product. If it takes a little extra to set-up, it takes a little extra to set-up. No worries from me.
25839
Post by: Kolath
Ugin, as filbert pointed out, the AB40k Maintainers have completely unrelated to Lone Wolf. They are a bunch of unpaid volunteers who maintain the 40k files out of the goodness of their heart.
Lone Wolf does absolutely nothing to support the rulesets for AB. This is the only way they avoid getting sued by GW.
79160
Post by: Ugin, the Owl King
I understand the 40k dev team is volunteer, and I am grateful for their work. What I don't understand is their reticence to simply tell us what is going on, or give us some semblance of a release date.
Also, the excuses being proffered on behalf of the dev team are speculative. They're preparing for future supplements? They're delaying it because of HH? Those MIGHT be right (not that it would matter to me; they're both silly excuses), but they also MIGHT be wrong. We don't know, because the people on the inside aren't talking.
I'm not mad about the delay. I think it's a shame they won't tell us what's going on. I'll confess I'm also disappointed with the Realm Works delay, which has also gone unexplained, and certainly is the responsibility of Lone Wolf.
25839
Post by: Kolath
They said on their FB and forums that they are working on including HH and they said that the Chapter Tactics is an issue.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Not that I know how these things work, but is it easier to clone the list, one per chapter set, and only add the relevant units? List each chapter as a new army?
I know this isn't the place to be asking, but in case anyone from 40k dev drops by....
1611
Post by: Nuwisha
I can't believe that people who aren't getting paid won't give me timely updates on the free things they give me!
Bastards.
16698
Post by: andrewm9
 Skinnereal wrote:Not that I know how these things work, but is it easier to clone the list, one per chapter set, and only add the relevant units? List each chapter as a new army?
I know this isn't the place to be asking, but in case anyone from 40k dev drops by....
I'm betting the real trick is having two detachments with different chapters and then allying in another different chapter.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Wouldn't it be pretty simple to do the C:SM army list once, copy it ~6 times then make the minor individual adjustments for each chapter? Having logic inside a single C:SM list to account for all the chapters seems needlessly complicated. A slightly larger list of armies to choose from is not a problem imo. You would need to apply updates to multiple armies instead of one, but that would probably be substantially easier than applying updates to a single list with more complicated logic.
Not criticising them or their choices btw, just discussing... as I eagerly await the SM update ; p
27004
Post by: clively
 Yonan wrote:Wouldn't it be pretty simple to do the C: SM army list once, copy it ~6 times then make the minor individual adjustments for each chapter? Having logic inside a single C: SM list to account for all the chapters seems needlessly complicated. A slightly larger list of armies to choose from is not a problem imo. You would need to apply updates to multiple armies instead of one, but that would probably be substantially easier than applying updates to a single list with more complicated logic.
Not criticising them or their choices btw, just discussing... as I eagerly await the SM update ; p
No. That would be a bad idea.
Imagine this: the person making the data file makes a simple mistake and sets Bolters to be AP2 weapons. Through the wonders of copy/paste they now have 6 files with bad information. bug report comes in, data file guy now has to fix that in 6 spots.... and that's an example of a "simple" problem. Hopefully as each little bug is found they remember to fix it in *all* the files.
My hat is off to those guys. I bought AB and am always happy when I get the notice upon launching it that new data files are ready. It's kind of like getting an unexpected gift.
5513
Post by: privateer4hire
 Kolath wrote:Ugin, as filbert pointed out, the AB40k Maintainers have completely unrelated to Lone Wolf. They are a bunch of unpaid volunteers who maintain the 40k files out of the goodness of their heart.
Lone Wolf does absolutely nothing to support the rulesets for AB. This is the only way they avoid getting sued by GW.
How the AB40k maintainers avoid that risk (of GW litigating against them) puzzles me.
25839
Post by: Kolath
privateer4hire wrote:How the AB40k maintainers avoid that risk (of GW litigating against them) puzzles me.
I believe they were hit with a C&D letter from GW, but the agreement was they would replace all the actual rules text with page number references to the books (which happened around the time they updated to 6th ed). It's a bummer to not have the special rules text (which was always useful to read for armies I don't play), but if it means they get to stay in business I'm all for it. I just wish there was a utility out there to easily update with rules text for your own personal use.
5513
Post by: privateer4hire
Hard to believe GW would allow even that much slack based on their alleged C&D rep for fan sites, tattoos, etc.
47246
Post by: Yonan
clively wrote:No. That would be a bad idea.
Imagine this: the person making the data file makes a simple mistake and sets Bolters to be AP2 weapons. Through the wonders of copy/paste they now have 6 files with bad information. bug report comes in, data file guy now has to fix that in 6 spots.... and that's an example of a "simple" problem. Hopefully as each little bug is found they remember to fix it in *all* the files.
Like I said, maintaining multiple lists would probably be easier than maintaining one list with complex logic, especially as it's largely "find and replace". With complicated logic, who knows how things are going to interact - it'll require a lot more testing.
19370
Post by: daedalus
privateer4hire wrote:Hard to believe GW would allow even that much slack based on their alleged C&D rep for fan sites, tattoos, etc.
Because all of that is enforcable by the law. There's limitations on what you can protect by law, and from my understanding as an unqualified armchair internet lawyer, game systems are effectively not one of those.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
 daedalus wrote:privateer4hire wrote:Hard to believe GW would allow even that much slack based on their alleged C&D rep for fan sites, tattoos, etc.
Because all of that is enforcable by the law. There's limitations on what you can protect by law, and from my understanding as an unqualified armchair internet lawyer, game systems are effectively not one of those.
This is correct. The only aspect of GW's games are the mechanics themselves that are "unique" to the game. Examples would be the turn order, hit and wound tables.
USR's are useless outside the scope of those unique mechanics, and thus hold no actual value as information in this respect. Unit costs are trivial by themselves, as are the stat lines(which is why they are in the files).
If anything, the stats and unit costs are MORE pertinent to the games than USR's.
I have it on very good authority that the changes to the current format of referencing page numbers instead of including specific rules was not done because of any legal high ground GW has, but more that arguing with them is very much not worthwhile for people who are doing this for free. The compromise was made after legal counsel.
You'll note, the WFB files do not do this, nor are they required to.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Sigh. This is so frustrating to read over. Let me PUBLICLY SAY as one of the 40k file devs.
The files will be done when they are done.
Really guys, we cannot get more specific than that. If I give you a date and miss it, you all complain. If I give you a date and meet it, everyone still complains because of the occasional bug saying. well why didn't you take longer to internally test??
It really is a no-win situation for us and I plead to you all to simply accept that we all will work as quickly as we can when given time to apply our work to this project. But remember that we all are not paid for this work, we have to(as others have said) purchase the books ourselves, Which coincidentally means we DON'T GET THE BOOK TILL YOU DO. We all have real-life jobs(some of which are full time or longer meaning 50 - 80 hours a week), we have families, that deserve our time also. finally we need to eat, sleep, have a little free time ourselves, etc...
Rome wasn't built in a day guys and gals.
168 Hours in a week
50 Hours real Life Job
56 Hours Sleeping (8 hours a day for the week)
10 hours time to eat meals(this is probably not enough time realistically)
That leave 52 hours. This needs to cover everything else, family, fun, bathroom, etc.. and data file work. Assume we really only get maybe a couple hours a day(best case) and realistically a few hours a week(most likely) to work on dev files, bug fix, beta test, etc...
Please note that we give time when we 'want' to give time to the project. None of the maintainer group owes the community the data files. Everyone is perfectly free to take what we have created in the past, copy it a bazillion times and tweak a couple spots and use what they created. As many have said, that seems to be such an easy fast way to do it. Please, by all means. Have fun.
As for official updated files. Again I say, They will be done when they are done.
This is also listed in the FAQ we have numerously pointed people to.
16233
Post by: deleted20250424
I dunno... that's sounds reasonable and all but I'm pretty sure you could make up some time here and there.
15 minute meals gives you back about 4.5 hours and you really only need like 6 hours of sleep a night max. So that throws another 14 hours in there.
That's like a whole extra day of doing work for free that you're wasting. COME ON!
Anyway, thanks for the work that you all do. I'll gladly accept anything from the AB crew whenever it drops.
26170
Post by: davethepak
Jlong - thank you for all you and the other files folks do.
Sincerely and honestly.
Anyone who does not like it is free to find either find alternatives, or help - I am sorry they somehow have expectations that do not match reality.
47246
Post by: Yonan
 jlong05 wrote:Sigh. This is so frustrating to read over. Let me PUBLICLY SAY as one of the 40k file devs.
If it makes you feel better, it's also frustrating to read this over and over again when you're looking for an eta ; p Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like the Space Marines 'dex is added now yay! Doesn't include support for SM allying with SM yet though, which is no biggie.
25839
Post by: Kolath
YOU GUYS! The file is out!!!
http://www.ab40k.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2148&p=10069#p10069
My relentless stalking of the ab40k.org site has finally paid off!
47246
Post by: Yonan
Is it just me, or does it not include the option to select chapter tactics anywhere? Every SM unit just has a "Chapter Tactics" rule.
1316
Post by: jlong05
Yonan wrote:Is it just me, or does it not include the option to select chapter tactics anywhere? Every SM unit just has a "Chapter Tactics" rule.
and yet again, I reiterate that we just cannot make everyone happy.
Go figure
47246
Post by: Yonan
jlong05 wrote: Yonan wrote:Is it just me, or does it not include the option to select chapter tactics anywhere? Every SM unit just has a "Chapter Tactics" rule.
and yet again, I reiterate that we just cannot make everyone happy. Go figure
Where do you figure lack of happiness in that comment? I was asking if anyone knew how to do it. You have a large chip on your shoulder mate. If I was complaining it would be: "We wait *this* long for a crippled list that doens't even include allies or the option to select chapter tactics? Lame!" I didn't say that, but it seems to be what you read. Would this have been so hard? "No you're not missing anything, that's how we chose to implement it. You can expect allies in the future and this is how we're implementing chapter tactics, we didn't feel it warranted the large amount of effort required for such minimal gain." which would have been perfectly reasonable if that's how you chose to go about it. "You can't make everyone happy"... lol.
34060
Post by: Mohoc
jlong05 wrote: Yonan wrote:Is it just me, or does it not include the option to select chapter tactics anywhere? Every SM unit just has a "Chapter Tactics" rule.
and yet again, I reiterate that we just cannot make everyone happy.
Go figure
No, you cannot. That being said, I am very happy and grateful that you you guys have put in all this work. Thank you.
47246
Post by: Yonan
There's a manual patch to the new release here that fixes some unspecified issues.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Much thanks for the release. I'll grab it when I get home.
I don't care how much of it there is, it's all good.
As for the whinging, Project updates are your friend.
I looked at the AB40k forums last weekend, and I couldn't see any status updates.
Anything like, "We look to have a week's work ahead of us", followed by "oops, just 1 more week..." is better than nothing.
Whatever, I don't use an army these days if the AB lists aren't out. No biggie, as I have 2.
10377
Post by: Bikeninja
Not sure where I did something wrong so maybe some of you can help. Got the prompt from AB to download the newest version and I downloaded the patch. Nothing appears to have changed though. Pedro is still 3 wounds and 3 attacks, no grav weapons. Did I so something wrong?
1316
Post by: jlong05
 Bikeninja wrote:Not sure where I did something wrong so maybe some of you can help. Got the prompt from AB to download the newest version and I downloaded the patch. Nothing appears to have changed though. Pedro is still 3 wounds and 3 attacks, no grav weapons. Did I so something wrong?
I don't work on the SM list, however I would suggest checking the http://www.ab40k.org/portal.php bug reports. I believe I have seen several emails on new reports. That may be there. If you still don't find it reported, you may try opening a bug report providing the details you have and see if either our SM dev or someone on our FAQ Test team can help work out the issue for you. Automatically Appended Next Post: Yonan wrote: jlong05 wrote: Yonan wrote:Is it just me, or does it not include the option to select chapter tactics anywhere? Every SM unit just has a "Chapter Tactics" rule.
and yet again, I reiterate that we just cannot make everyone happy.
Go figure
Where do you figure lack of happiness in that comment? I was asking if anyone knew how to do it. You have a large chip on your shoulder mate. If I was complaining it would be:
"We wait *this* long for a crippled list that doens't even include allies or the option to select chapter tactics? Lame!"
I didn't say that, but it seems to be what you read. Would this have been so hard? "No you're not missing anything, that's how we chose to implement it. You can expect allies in the future and this is how we're implementing chapter tactics, we didn't feel it warranted the large amount of effort required for such minimal gain." which would have been perfectly reasonable if that's how you chose to go about it. "You can't make everyone happy"... lol.
Apologies. I guess I did read that incorrectly if that wasn't your intention. As for Chapter Tactics and Allies I woudl check the http://www.ab40k.org/portal.php forums for any updates. I know that the Allies is not in specifically, but am not aware of Chapter Tactics as I do not work on the SM files.
47246
Post by: Yonan
Bikeninja wrote:Not sure where I did something wrong so maybe some of you can help. Got the prompt from AB to download the newest version and I downloaded the patch. Nothing appears to have changed though. Pedro is still 3 wounds and 3 attacks, no grav weapons. Did I so something wrong?
You want to choose the "Codex: Space Marines" list, not the "Space Marines" list which is still there. It looks like all the 6th ed 'dexes have "Codex:" before the dex name whereas the older ones do not. jlong05 wrote:Apologies. I guess I did read that incorrectly if that wasn't your intention.
No worries, the internet can get to you sometimes hehe.
55319
Post by: Creeperman
Speaking as someone who has been dinking around with data files for awhile, AB can be a tremendous pain in the ass to work with. It's really not meant to cleanly handle intra-codex alliances without a lot of hacks, and the amount of work required to make just one race functional is staggering. Add to that all the supplemental material the AB40K team is supporting, plus the various legacy framework and code they still have to carry over from 5th edition or earlier, and it's amazing they can provide anything so quickly, much less that it actually (mostly) works. I've been playing with my own independent 6th edition implementation for a couple hours a week since 6th edition launched, and still don't have a complete codex of anything working, so hats off to AB40K team.
9527
Post by: Dinamarth
Awesome! Thank you volunteers that updated it!
32912
Post by: gungagreg
Since we're on the subject of the AB SM files, can someone with inside knowledge comment on why the following still happens in AB?
1. Bikers CAN upgrade to special weapons BUT they don't lose any other wargear (they should be losing a bolt pistol by exchanging it for a Chainsword in order to get access to the special weapons table) and
2. Sergeants in Tac/Scout/Dev squads cannot upgrade their Bolters to a Ranged Weapon/Melee Weapon list item via the Chainsword exchange?
For those not following, there's apparently an AB only opinion that this two way exchange (Bolter->Chainsword->Melee/Ranged weapon upgrade) is not legal even though the FAQ on 09/13 pretty much shows that that path is intended as it's the only way for Bikers to get access to special weapons and therefore that they intend that the existing path of exchanging bolters in Sergeants for Chainswords should allow Melee/Ranged weapons as well.
...my combi-sergeants are objecting to AB forcing them to carry around a Bolter along with their combi-weapon...
55659
Post by: pities2004
For some reason I cannot select allies when I choose space marine as the main origination chart
9675
Post by: Looky Likey
The new version seems to have added the new SoB codex. Can't tell what else has changed.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
The Sargents are still messed up. I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for a Combi-Weapon, but not my Bolt Gun.
52215
Post by: spectreoneone
Anpu42 wrote:The Sargents are still messed up. I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for a Combi-Weapon, but not my Bolt Gun.
They're not messed up. On pg. 159 of the Codex, under Ranged weapons and Melee weapons it states: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:" Since combi-weapons are under the ranged weapons list, RAW, you can only replace the Sergeant's bolt pistol with a combi-weapon. Does it make sense to have both a boltgun and a combi-weapon, no...but unfortunately, that's the way the rules were written, and until GW FAQs it, Army Builder is following RAW.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 spectreoneone wrote: Anpu42 wrote:The Sargents are still messed up. I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for a Combi-Weapon, but not my Bolt Gun.
They're not messed up. On pg. 159 of the Codex, under Ranged weapons and Melee weapons it states: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:" Since combi-weapons are under the ranged weapons list, RAW, you can only replace the Sergeant's bolt pistol with a combi-weapon. Does it make sense to have both a boltgun and a combi-weapon, no...but unfortunately, that's the way the rules were written, and until GW FAQs it, Army Builder is following RAW.
I know it is silly, but now all of my Sargents are wielding A Bolt Gun and a Combi-Plasma.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Nothing silly bout the man's way.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
I wonder if they are ever going to update the apocalypse/Escalation or Stronghold Assault units. I know there is the one month embargo but Apocalypse has been out for what, like a year now?
16698
Post by: andrewm9
NecronLord3 wrote:I wonder if they are ever going to update the apocalypse/Escalation or Stronghold Assault units. I know there is the one month embargo but Apocalypse has been out for what, like a year now?
Its been out a little more than six months and with the pace of codex updates an all its amazing they are as caught up as they are. They gotten every codex supplement so far and every codex. I hear they are working on Apocalypse, but I'm sure it will be ready in due time.
1021
Post by: AesSedai
Thanks, dude.
Is it just me or are their only HQ choices for farsight enclaves?
52163
Post by: Shandara
The site wasn't listing 1.34 as current either, still on 1.33. Not much activity lately.
65069
Post by: Slipknotzim
any one herd anything about expected releases, especially for the Heresy?
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
Or IA2 Second Edition?
19370
Post by: daedalus
 AesSedai wrote:Thanks, dude.
Is it just me or are their only HQ choices for farsight enclaves?
Looks broken to me too.
39162
Post by: punchdub
Updated with Nids as of this evening. Auto-download.
47473
Post by: gigasnail
thanks for the nids update! we really appreciate it.
did find a points hitch, adding a tyranid warrior with a barbed strangler costs 44 points. the weapon cost should be 10 points for either cannon (BS/VC) and 30 points for the model.
18410
Post by: filbert
As an alternative to posting the link here, you can just go to this page:
http://www.wolflair.com/rightframe.php?context=army_builder&page=supplemental_downloads
And get whatever files you need - they keep it bang up to date.
11973
Post by: Slackermagee
Space marine sergeant options: still not fixed.
Sorry guys, the codex says 'The Space Marine Sergeant may exchange bolter or bolt pistol for chainsword' and under the ranged/ CC weapon lists 'may exchange bolt pistol or melee weapon for whatever the hell he wants'.
Can you please fix it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Anpu42 wrote: spectreoneone wrote: Anpu42 wrote:The Sargents are still messed up. I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for a Combi-Weapon, but not my Bolt Gun.
They're not messed up. On pg. 159 of the Codex, under Ranged weapons and Melee weapons it states: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:" Since combi-weapons are under the ranged weapons list, RAW, you can only replace the Sergeant's bolt pistol with a combi-weapon. Does it make sense to have both a boltgun and a combi-weapon, no...but unfortunately, that's the way the rules were written, and until GW FAQs it, Army Builder is following RAW.
.
Except that Bolters can be exchanged for a melee weapon which can be exchanged for a different ranged or melee weapon. You get to swap both, not just the bolt pistol.
And just to double check: every sergeant in power armor (or scout armor, for that matter) has the option to take a melee weapon somehow while retaining their bolt pistol. Every sergeant gets to double substitute like they've been able to in every other codex.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 Slackermagee wrote:Space marine sergeant options: still not fixed.
Sorry guys, the codex says 'The Space Marine Sergeant may exchange bolter or bolt pistol for chainsword' and under the ranged/ CC weapon lists 'may exchange bolt pistol or melee weapon for whatever the hell he wants'.
Can you please fix it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: spectreoneone wrote: Anpu42 wrote:The Sargents are still messed up. I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for a Combi-Weapon, but not my Bolt Gun.
They're not messed up. On pg. 159 of the Codex, under Ranged weapons and Melee weapons it states: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:" Since combi-weapons are under the ranged weapons list, RAW, you can only replace the Sergeant's bolt pistol with a combi-weapon. Does it make sense to have both a boltgun and a combi-weapon, no...but unfortunately, that's the way the rules were written, and until GW FAQs it, Army Builder is following RAW.
.
Except that Bolters can be exchanged for a melee weapon which can be exchanged for a different ranged or melee weapon. You get to swap both, not just the bolt pistol.
And just to double check: every sergeant in power armor (or scout armor, for that matter) has the option to take a melee weapon somehow while retaining their bolt pistol. Every sergeant gets to double substitute like they've been able to in every other codex.
I have checked the Iron Fist and it still screwed up. I have just been taking the Teleport Homer as it cost the same as the Combi-Plasma.
11856
Post by: Arschbombe
Seems they made a change for some of the marine armies. C:SM tactical Sergeants can swap out their stock weapons for power fist and combi-grav, for example.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 Arschbombe wrote:Seems they made a change for some of the marine armies. C: SM tactical Sergeants can swap out their stock weapons for power fist and combi-grav, for example.
Thanks, checking...
Well they fixed it for Codex: Space Marines, but not Codex: Imperial Fist, Iron hands or Codex: Black Templar.
60813
Post by: Brometheus
Updated today and there's something fishy with the Chaos Terminators points calculation
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Is Be'Lakor/Cypher in there yet?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I'll update the thread once I get home. Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
First post updated.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
Nice, glad I found this
64174
Post by: Davespil
Anyone have the dropbox link for those of us who have an expired license?
65069
Post by: Slipknotzim
18080
Post by: Anpu42
None of the HH units are showing up, is there an update I need?
9675
Post by: Looky Likey
Anpu42 wrote:None of the HH units are showing up, is there an update I need?
Showing where? I see them fine if I select Age of Darkness as my army type, then choose primary detachment.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
Looky Likey wrote: Anpu42 wrote:None of the HH units are showing up, is there an update I need?
Showing where? I see them fine if I select Age of Darkness as my armyA type, then choose primary detachment.
All I Show is:
Allied Detachment
Lords of War (Sons of Horus)
Primary Detachment (Sons of Horus)
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
Anpu42 wrote:Looky Likey wrote: Anpu42 wrote:None of the HH units are showing up, is there an update I need?
Showing where? I see them fine if I select Age of Darkness as my armyA type, then choose primary detachment.
All I Show is:
Allied Detachment
Lords of War (Sons of Horus)
Primary Detachment (Sons of Horus)
Click on the primary detachment, and it will expand. It's a little wonky.
18080
Post by: Anpu42
 MajorWesJanson wrote: Anpu42 wrote:Looky Likey wrote: Anpu42 wrote:None of the HH units are showing up, is there an update I need?
Showing where? I see them fine if I select Age of Darkness as my armyA type, then choose primary detachment.
All I Show is:
Allied Detachment
Lords of War (Sons of Horus)
Primary Detachment (Sons of Horus)
Click on the primary detachment, and it will expand. It's a little wonky.
Thank you and a little Wonky!
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Updated the first post with most current file.
18410
Post by: filbert
I notice that file version v1.43 came out yesterday - does this include the recent Imperial Guard codex? Anyone know? It's not always entirely obvious if the latest codex has been applied or not.
According to the release notes, Codex Tyranids hasn't even been added yet (at least, there is no mention of it being added in the release notes so I guess not) so I assuming the Imperial Guard codex is still awaiting being added too.
AB Release Notes wrote:AB 40K Files 6th Edition Revision History:
v1.00: 04 August 12: Initial 6th edition release.
v1.01: 11 August 12: Updating files for 6th edition compliance.
v1.02: 16 August 12: Updating files for 6th edition compliance.
v1.03: 19 August 12: Updating files for 6th Edition compliance.
v1.04: 23 August 12: Updating files for 6th Edition compliance.
v1.05: 27 August 12: Updating files for 6th Edition compliance.
v1.06: 12 September 12: Updating files for 6th Edition compliance.
v1.06: 25 September 12: Updating files for 6th Edition compliance.
v1.07:
v1.08: 27 October 12: Updating files for 6E compliance. Addition of Codex Chaos Space Marines.
v1.09: 28 October 12: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Chaos Space Marines.
v1.10: 14 November 12: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Chaos Space Marines.
v1.11: 21 November 12: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Chaos Space Marines.
v1.12: 28 November 12: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Chaos Space Marines.
v1.13: 12 February 13: Addition of Codex Dark Angels. Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections.
v1.14: 14 February 13: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Dark Angels.
v1.15: 18 February 13: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Dark Angels.
v1.16: 25 February 13: Updating files for 6E compliance. Bugfixes and corrections for new Dark Angels.
v1.17: xx February 13: Addition of Imperial Armour 1 (second edition), Death from the Skies, Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.18: 15 May 13: Addition of Codex Tau Empire, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.19: 20 May 13: Corrections to Codex Tau Empire, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.20: 27 May 13: Corrections to Codex Tau Empire, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.21: 29 May 13: Corrections to Codex Tau Empire, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.22: 24 June 13: Codex Eldar, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.23: 1 July 13: Corrections to Codex Eldar, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.24: 8 July 13: Corrections to Codex Eldar, updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.25: 29 July 13: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.26: 5 August 13: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.27: 26 August 13: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.28: 23 October 13: Addition of Codex Space Marines, Horus Heresy, many other updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.29: 28 October 13: Corrections to Codex Space Marines, Horus Heresy, many other updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.30: 11 November 13: Corrections to Codex Space Marines, Horus Heresy, many other updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.31: 18 November 13: Corrections to Codex Space Marines, Horus Heresy, many other updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.32: 27 November 13: Necron Dark Harvest. Corrections to Codex Space Marines, Horus Heresy, many other updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.33: 4 December 13: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.34: 15 January 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.35: 22 February 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.36: 26 February 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.37: 5 March 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.38: 12 March 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.39: 20 March 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.40: 27 March 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.41: 20 April 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.42: 5 May 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
v1.43: 8 May 14: Updates, bugfixes and corrections.
9675
Post by: Looky Likey
There was a version yesterday and a version earlier in the week, I think the one yesterday was an emergency bug fix as the one from earlier in the week was pretty broken, it was expecting me to have Tau stuff in my Space Marine army.
Nids was added before this week. New AM hasn't been added yet, I'm not sure its been a month yet since AM released?
I'm waiting for the 3rd HH book to be added as well.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
Yay, fortifications from SA.
9249
Post by: Marius Xerxes
Still waiting for AM..
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
Yes now they have taken the time to add sub sections to all the forum topics, but still fail to update the program for books released last year. +1 for battlescribe.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
1.45 is out, and has a fair few updates.
AM is in, and I'll look for more later.
Missing options: CCS, vox caster
18410
Post by: filbert
Army Builder is dead in the water at the moment it seems. The volunteer team over at AB40K are pretty much a couple of blokes left and they don't seem to be able or willing to keep up with the pace of new releases. No 7th ed files yet, for example. If only Battlescribe had better output templates. Battlescribe with Army Builder style output would suit me just fine.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 filbert wrote:Army Builder is dead in the water at the moment it seems. The volunteer team over at AB40K are pretty much a couple of blokes left and they don't seem to be able or willing to keep up with the pace of new releases. No 7th ed files yet, for example. If only Battlescribe had better output templates. Battlescribe with Army Builder style output would suit me just fine.
Yeah. A friend of mine and I were brainstorming a army list creator that would be web based quite a long time ago, and one night a couple weeks ago, while getting dinner at the nearby pub, he turned to me and said, "You know, if we would have actually finished the site, we would have had to redo literally everything we'd done so far to accommodate for 6th, and then we'd have had to adjust again for 7th."
I gave him a high five and we went on eating, and drinking.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
What does AB need ti add for 7th? It's not like GW lets them add rules any more, so I'm using 6th versions for now. It'll not change the points or anything.
I expect the AB listbuilders are swamped with the books getting thrown at them from GW. As-and-when is enough, if we know things are moving at all. It looks so, so I'll wait around for them to drop.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Allies come to mind. So do 7th edition psychic powers.
Also, escalation units would be nice, since that's a part of the game now.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
This was posted on the AB40k forums by one of the maintainers, and sums up the position at it stands nicely so I thought it was worth posting here. Dan
Bear with us. We have just brought a new maintainer on board. I did Imperial Guard, he has started up with Astra Militarum and Militarum Tempestus. You might have noticed from the laundry list of bugs he is quite busy. Once that is stable, we have a whole bunch of Imperial Armour as well as Apocalypse to update. I have to nuke Eldar, Iyanden and Corsairs starting from the ground up to get 6th edition allies working right. Then we can start on 7th edition. Also, you might have noticed our lead maintainer has had to step away to take care of real world issues. Rest assured, we don't do this because we have to, we do it because we want to. A complete list of what has changed would help us immensely. Here is a link: http://www.ab40k.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3174 to collect them in one place.
Regards,
Homer
P.S. BTW, you can always set Apocalypse on and it is like having an unbound list anyway.
Glad those who couldn't keep up with this decided to walk away, for what ever reason. I totally understand real life getting in the way. I just hate it when those in control hang on to the programs when they know they can't do it any more. Look at Rick Raisley, the creator of Heavy Metal Pro for Battletech, that guy refused to give up the license and yet has produced a new program in over a decade.
52163
Post by: Shandara
Well in this case noone is stopping anyone from writing their own AB 40k files.
26170
Post by: davethepak
Shandara wrote:Well in this case noone is stopping anyone from writing their own AB 40k files.
^ This.
If they really have "walked away" then make your own (I am ignorant as to anyone quitting - last I read they were just on reduced staff and behind).
NOTHING is stopping anyone from making a new set of files - especially since you can install into different directories.
If you actually read the documentation, and look over the files - its not hard to figure out how to do it.
What is hard, is the amount of work - and this is what we all who use it owe thanks to the AB maintainers.
I have in the past updated my own codexes while waiting for official updates.
6251
Post by: NecronLord3
I tried to add in Be'Lakor and couldnt make it work.
9675
Post by: Looky Likey
I wouldn't blame them if they have walked away with the dog's abuse they have over the timeliness of updates considering they are unpaid volunteers.
I think it needs a donation pot to get it started again, actually start paying people to update would be good.
I would imagine all of the custom FoCs that the 7th edition codex are running with would be a right pain to sort out as well, it feels like a total rewrite of a lot of the core stuff in the data file.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Looky Likey wrote:I think it needs a donation pot to get it started again, actually start paying people to update would be good.
That is a compelling idea.
1316
Post by: jlong05
daedalus wrote:Looky Likey wrote:I think it needs a donation pot to get it started again, actually start paying people to update would be good.
That is a compelling idea.
compelling, but illegal. It will bring GW IP lawyers back into the mix which we don't want.
19370
Post by: daedalus
jlong05 wrote: daedalus wrote:Looky Likey wrote:I think it needs a donation pot to get it started again, actually start paying people to update would be good.
That is a compelling idea.
compelling, but illegal. It will bring GW IP lawyers back into the mix which we don't want.
I'm not sure it would be. I know you're in some way affiliated with the effort though, and I'm not a lawyer, so I won't talk out my ass against someone who's likely privvy to more information than me in the matter.
At any rate, I can understand simply not wanting to deal with the GW legal hellhounds.
38888
Post by: Skinnereal
I can throw together the bits to build a comms room, and wire up an office to get people in the internet, etc.
But, I cannot program for toffee.
So, the people who can work out how to get these lists working, at all, are getting what money I can spare to use AB (bought and subscribed) and Battlescribe (paid-for).
If there's anything I could do to help, I would, but that's usually already taken care of by the time I hear about these things.
18410
Post by: filbert
As an addendum to this, I wonder if it is possible for the Army Builder 40K development guys to throw the data files out to Github and take advantage of more collaborative working if they are struggling for man power. Battlescribe does something similar with its repository I believe and it would help make keeping on top of versions/updates a little easier.
1316
Post by: jlong05
filbert wrote:As an addendum to this, I wonder if it is possible for the Army Builder 40K development guys to throw the data files out to Github and take advantage of more collaborative working if they are struggling for man power. Battlescribe does something similar with its repository I believe and it would help make keeping on top of versions/updates a little easier.
That is a possibly and I admit to never looking a battlescribe to see how the files interact there, but can say that the 40k files are heavily integrated and small changes for one army have sometimes huge impacts on another. This is mainly due to shared code and design that doesn't always lend well to collaborative projects. This is why we have a strict process for bringing new talent on the team as we need to see how they develope as well as if they can work with the team. Guys only wanting to do their thing without regard to the bigger picture don't work out to well, and unfortunately that is what those group efforts really end up working like.
26170
Post by: davethepak
I for one salute the guys maintaining the files - its not small task managing such a large body of complicated work, especially when they are all volunteers.
I have reviewed the files quite a lot (and made my own versions while waiting for "official" updates) and have to say - they are quite intertwined.
There are some benefits to this, as when gw makes changes to some core aspects, only a few things need to get updated.
The drawbacks are that changing how things are done (i.e. allies, fortifications, USR's etc.) is a bit harder to do as you sort of need to be backward compatible.
Personally, I wish I had more time to contribute to their project, and given the nature of the data, am not put-off by the fact they need to vet new talent with a lot of scrutiny .
(Making simple updates for my own files is one thing - making updates for complex file interactions which are robust enough for distribution is something else).
If they did want to use a more open source model to support larger collaboration (which may or my not be a good idea) it would be a lot of work, but might enable them to take a step back and recast the architecture and file interdependence.
Regardless of all that - I have a ton of respect for those guys, and with I could help more.
1316
Post by: jlong05
I think that the only real way for this to move to a more open collaborative effort(ala Battlescribe style)is to make each army book its own complete file set. No relational items, no shared code, LOTS of duplicated effort and unfortunately LOTS of differing opinions on how something looks instead of a more cohesive style that exists now. With the shared code, we reduce lots of bloat in that code by not having 10+ bolter items. instead we have 1 that is used by all 10 armies. This works, but has issues when GW releases rules that say 9 armies use that bolter but this new release users Bolter #10 which now is different.
My understanding on Battlescribe from what I have seen/heard is that each army is a separate file that is loaded. This would eliminate that changes in one affects the other, but makes for some excessively larger loading times due to how AB loads armies.
I am curious how BS deals with more complex ideas like Dataslates, Formations, different FOC armies, Allies, etc...
9675
Post by: Looky Likey
The new 7th edition data file is out and includes detachments, LoW, Grey Knights and Assassins, no Space Wolves. Assassins is bugged as it gives you warnings about not having HQ/Troops etc.
I had an issue understanding how to add units to a detachment as I couldn't seem to drag and drop them properly into a detachment. You have to select the indented name of the unit not the main heading for the unit then drag it into the detachment, the arrows should change from facing << to >> when you've got it right.
7463
Post by: Crablezworth
I'm notific the same remove hq error with the astra militarum. It seems to think the primaris psykers take up hq slots.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
jlong05 wrote:My understanding on Battlescribe from what I have seen/heard is that each army is a separate file that is loaded. This would eliminate that changes in one affects the other, but makes for some excessively larger loading times due to how AB loads armies.
That would depend on how the builder loads the data.
My BS-Blood Angel file is only 1.4MB and contains (unless I forgot something) everything in the game, from GW, to FW and Apocalypse-Formations.
Github is really excellent to have multiple people and crowds working on the same thing.
I think it could really help Army Builder, but it gets more complicated if armies are intertwined like that.
I am curious how BS deals with more complex ideas like Dataslates, Formations, different FOC armies, Allies, etc...
You add a Force.
Each Force needs a Force Type ( CAD, Allied Detachment, Apocalypse/Unbound or Formation) and the Codex/Faction that you want to use.
Stuff like 1-2 HQ is determined in the Force Type.
Then you can select a second Force if you want.
The only issue is that there is nothing to prevent you from taking an Allied Detachment that has the same Faction as your main.
|
|
