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.

Have I been playing Tau Firewarriors wrong or is Armybuilder just got a bug?

Is it legal to take a squad of 12 firewarriors including squad leader with drone controller that then lets you take 2 gun drones? Because thats how I have been playing. I just got Army Builder and its telling me that my firewarriors are illegal. So who is right.

Thanks all.

Your codex is correct - whatever it states in there.

Hint: army builder is quite often wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Your codex is correct - whatever it states in there.

Hint: army builder is quite often wrong.

What he said. Read the codex

Also I don't know what AB Files you are using because I can give a Fire Warrior Shas'ui a HW Drone Controller just fine.

Edit: I think I know the problem. It is checking for the transport limit when you don't even have a Devilfish. It seems to be a Bug in the files. Just ignore the "Transport Cap exceeded" error and go and report it on the AB40k site.

I did read the Codex just checking to see if some FAQ that I didn't know about that had changed the rules. Thanks for the confirmation guys.

They can't take a devilfish however.
That might have been what army builder was complaining about.

Canonness Rory wrote:They can't take a devilfish however.
That might have been what army builder was complaining about.

Yup that's it, just it complains even if you don't try to take a 'fish and the unit goes over 12 models. A minor bug.

Yeah, a firewarrior squad may only take a devilfish if (including drones) you have 12 or less models. Which is different to some armies who may take a transport even if there ar too many models to fit inside.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Hint: army builder is quite often wrong.

It most certainly is not. 9 times out of 10 the problems are due to old datafiles or simple user-error.
Any issues can be PMed to me and I'll report it.

Steelmage - I would say 1/10 fits "quite often" would you not? :rolleyes:

I've reported things in the past, and they get fixed. However it should never be relied upon, and therefore asking questions like "but AB says I can!!!" gets tedious. It is a helper program, and should never be relied upon over your own codex/armybook

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - I would say 1/10 fits "quite often" would you not? :rolleyes:

I've reported things in the past, and they get fixed. However it should never be relied upon, and therefore asking questions like "but AB says I can!!!" gets tedious. It is a helper program, and should never be relied upon over your own codex/armybook

Emphasis added.

As a Tool, it is fantastic. It turns List building from 2 hours of Rough Drafts and tedious Calculations to no more than 15 minutes if you know what the list is, or 30 minutes if you are dicking about with what the army comp is. But it is a Aid, not a Replacement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - I would say 1/10 fits "quite often" would you not? :rolleyes:

You are taking it out of the intended context.

People use AB all the time, every day. Of all of that, there are a few mistakes/errors/conflicts that occur. Of *those mistakes* only 1/10 is due to AB error.

Since I don't hear of many AB errors, if 90% are 1D10T errors.... that is pretty impressive.

It is a helper program, and should never be relied upon over your own codex/armybook

Again, missing the point. Many people do not have their own codex totally memorized, or know themselves to make rule mistakes occasionally. When they are presented with a discrepency between AB and *their understanding* of the rules... they will sometimes question their own understanding... thinking they have missed a rule somewhere...

coredump wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - I would say 1/10 fits "quite often" would you not? :rolleyes:

You are taking it out of the intended context.

People use AB all the time, every day. Of all of that, there are a few mistakes/errors/conflicts that occur. Of *those mistakes* only 1/10 is due to AB error.

Since I don't hear of many AB errors, if 90% are 1D10T errors.... that is pretty impressive.

Indeed. it is impressive, even more so when you realise the datafiles are all volunteer work.

It is a helper program, and should never be relied upon over your own codex/armybook

Again, missing the point. Many people do not have their own codex totally memorized, or know themselves to make rule mistakes occasionally. When they are presented with a discrepency between AB and *their understanding* of the rules... they will sometimes question their own understanding... thinking they have missed a rule somewhere...

I know the datafiles are volunteer work, being on both the ab40k and whfb sites, and I fully appreciate it - they are *fantastic* as a resource however I would always implore people to know their codex *first* and then use AB. That way when you get discrepancies you can check for yourself, and feed back to the authors as needed...

I agree with all you guys.

AB is not a codex, it is simply a tool helping you making armylists.
The reason why I responded is pretty simple; I hear "AB is often wrong" and "AB is full of errors" a lot.
The interesting thing is, when asking for specifics the "errors" reported are mostly, as in "basically all of them", user-errors or old datafile issues.

Yes, if any discrepency shows up refer to your codex. AB is not your codex and should never be treated as such.
But making blanket statements like; "AB is often wrong", is just plainly......wrong.

Which brings me to a second issue. I cannot abide people who whine about errors (real ones, this time) in AB, but cannot be arsed to actually report the issue. These idiots would much rather continue their whining than actually help fixing the problem.

(This is obviously not directed at you, nosferatu1001. Really just me ranting. )

To get this thread back on track;

To OP;

Yes, it is an issue in AB and it is being worked on.

Thank you for contributing.

Are you trying to put them in a devilfish? That may be the issue?

*sigh*

No, I am not trying to load them in a devilfish just an error in the program.