Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[/rant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like user error to me.

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

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

That's operability by accident, not design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ KiMonarrez,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is not an official document from Games Workshop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. Cool.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ungratefulness was always #1.

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

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

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

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

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

Ghaz:

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

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

HQ (1-2): Warboss

Troops (2-6): Shoota boyz

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

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

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

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

"No, it would not."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I personally love AB.

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

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

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

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

I say keep up the good work AB40kmaintainers!

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

**Edit: Punctuation & Grammar

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

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

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

Ghaz:

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

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

then how about you write the datafiles.

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

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

Define 'useless'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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