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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

jlong05 wrote:So your logic flow is flawed.

No, my reasoning is sound.

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

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

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

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

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

[Edit: Oops, fixed that]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polonius wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

That being said, on to your question.

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

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

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

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

Nurglitch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

jlong05 wrote:So your logic flow is flawed.

No, my reasoning is sound.

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

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

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

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

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

[Edit: Oops, fixed that]

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

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

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

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GW designers reference page:

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

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

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

Design logic:

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

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

Just a heads up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

bottom right.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need a good laugh.

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

Now where's that Ignore button.