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.

I'd like to chime and say that while I love the AB files, I think the maintainers may have jumped the gun a bit with this decision. I'm sure it was made at least partly because of a policy, but it comes across, not as an implementation of a new policy, but as a statement.

I'm clearly not going to create my own datafiles, and maybe you have enough feedback to know that users would rather be 100% certain of the legality of their lists rather than have the most flexibility in creating lists that are fully accepted and legal in many areas. I was always under the impression that AB was meant to be a tool, and legality and verification were up to a TO. If there has been a shift, then I apologize.

On a more personal note, the spirited nature of your comments, Ghaz, comes across to me as being defensive. When Yakface explained why a decision for the adepticon FAQ was reached, it was much more impersonal and matter of fact. I know that in volunteer organizations there can be a tendency for politics and the like, and if there was a nasty fight in the dev community about this, nobody would be suprised.

I think a compromise solution, perhaps of making the option selectable but having it throw up a caution or warning, would be better suited to keep all users happy.

Ghaz, I am telling you what is useful to me, as one of many users. That is all. I am not "dictating to [you] how the AB files should be" any more than the people who post or write to you in support are. They support your decision because it is a decision they share; I post arguing against it because it is a decision I do not. Kindly learn to differentiate between feedback and a personal attack. Cheers.

Polonius wrote:I think a compromise solution, perhaps of making the option selectable but having it throw up a caution or warning, would be better suited to keep all users happy.

Normally I would agree, but the problem with this approach is that many people would simply ignore the warning and make their list anyways. If the Maintainer group also applied that same warning to the printouts(indicating it was a questionble option) the user community would still complain as they woudln't want that on their list.

In my local gaming area(mind you that is the Greater Phoenix Metropolitan area) many game organizers require lists for armies in advance and actually prefer AB lists as oposed to any other system(including hand written). This is because they understand that the options allowed within AB will always be correct based on the strictest approach to the rules. Do they allow alternate rulings that AB doesn't always allow for, 'Yes', But these are handled on a situation by situation basis and are handled by the player simply saving the approriate points in their list and Manually editing (In handwriting) the change on the printout. This way the printed list is still accurate and the edit are clearly noted.

If the datafiles themselves allowed all these different rules options; first, the files would be harder to handle (many views for everything and multiple added warnings to display would have to be coded for adding untold amounts of time to update new codexes as they are released, what, its now going to take more than a month for a new codex at minimum?????) and second, the output datafiles would take even longer to review, for games, given the vast majority of alternate views that exist for every army due to poorly written Codexes and equally poorly supported FAQs by the developer themselves.

Honestly, I would like to have everything myself, but that isn't feasible if you want a tool that is able to support the needs of everyone. I want to know that any list my opponent may show up with from AB is 100% legal. It concerns me extremely that others in this very thread have admitted to editing the text of the output file to make their 'corrections'. What if those corrections were in fact wrong and gave my opponent an advantage because I didnt own their codex to double-check everything. No, I would much rather know without doubt that the lists being provided are correct and if there is a dispute have my opponent bring it to my attention and we take that time to agree or not. Personally for the Nob issue, it would be an allow from me, but I know others who I game with that would not allow it(including 1 that is an Ork player himself and believes the rule has been changed from 3rd and now doesn't use PKs in his shoota Boyz mobs). That is his choice though.

Now, instead of everyone continuing to beat this dead horse, please continue to contact GW. Let them know that its an extreme displeasure that the FAQ for your specific army is not updated. Let them know that its making it hard for you to enjoy your gaming time when you have to constantly argue with opponents to allow you to take options that are not clear within your codex. Let them know that without proper support and continually updated FAQs the 40k game is not going to stay a fun experience for you.

Only by continually bringing this to the attention of GW will this ever be fixed.

Those are well reasoned points, and I guess I am behind the times in terms of accepting the validity of AB printouts. At the risk of repeating myself, I still don't see how it would hurt the new mission of AB to include a flag if a certain option (that may or may not be legal, depending on your jurisdiction) is taken, but clearly a decision has been made. I don't play orks myself, so what are players doing to get around this? Simply ending short, and adding the klaw by hand?

Polonius wrote:Those are well reasoned points, and I guess I am behind the times in terms of accepting the validity of AB printouts. At the risk of repeating myself, I still don't see how it would hurt the new mission of AB to include a flag if a certain option (that may or may not be legal, depending on your jurisdiction) is taken, but clearly a decision has been made. I don't play orks myself, so what are players doing to get around this? Simply ending short, and adding the klaw by hand?

Yes, For my lists and others in my area, they simply save the required amount of points for each of their affected mobs and hand note it on the printout which is then communicated to their opponent or the Tournament Organizer prior to game play. This is also the same thing that would happen with any disputed ruling in which the clear rule is not available form GW via FAQ. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another instance though right now, but I know they do exist.

Not to stir the pot... but you guys (the 40k maintainers) might wanna check this out. It's from the v3 authoring kit manual. Specifically, this portion addressing the changes from v2 to v3.

Wolf Lair about AB 3.0 wrote:
Basic Objectives

The following is quick recap of the primary objectives set forth when work on Army Builder V3.0 was begun.

-Decrease the number of hard limits imposed by Army Builder and flag validation errors instead, allowing more flexibility for friendly games with special (i.e. loose) criteria.
-Eliminate the hard-wired exceptions model of V2.x. The exceptions model was driven by all of the various attributes used to apply changes and perform validation.
-Make Army Builder more powerful and easier to use for end-users by re-working the user-interface and adding lots of new capabilities.
-Offer users a high level of customization of the user-interface.
-Provide authors with significant flexibility so that all the existing game systems are better handled and new game systems can be more easily accommodated in the future.
-Simplify and streamline the data file authoring process.
-Support all the game system mechanics for which V2.x currently does a poor job (or fails utterly to support).
-Lay the foundation for adding inventory management in the future.
-Provide full support for localization of both Army Builder and data files.

Seems to me that the maintainers have "lost their way", if you will, and reintrodiced something from 2.0 that 3.0 was specifically designed to address. Get off the high horse Ghaz. On this you're wrong. Just add the disclaimer and allow him to use the tool as intended.

Perhaps you're the one who should get off you're high horse claiming that you have even an inkling of what the majority of the users want in the datafiles.

Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

I'll reiterate. Wolflair SPECIFICALLY stated they wanted 3.0 to have looser rules so you COULD do exactly like he's asking, and then throw up a validation message. You re-introduced the problem/issue/error/whateveryouchosetocallit.

Not trying to start a flamewar over this, but it smacks of petulant "I don't wanna." Yeah, we understand you don't necessarily agree, and aren't 100% certain it's correct. You're also (by definition) not 100% certain it's not correct. Allow the loose rule (as intended) and throw up the validation message/warning. Nobody is asking you to be 100% correct. They're asking you to allow the usability of the tool they purchased.

As for what the "majority of the users want". If they don't want it, they won't give the powerklaw to the nob. It's the same as the Stability Control on my car. The button to turn it off is there for those who want it. I have never used it, and probably never will, just like most drivers who have bought cars like mine, but the option is there. Having the option is all he's asking.

If you know another set of data file authors that can do a better job creating files, FOR FREE, for the public at NO CHARGE, then by all means go there and be happy.
Ok that's off my chest.
The set of people that create the 40k file do the best they can to give everyone a file, to use(for a program that they aren't selling and are not receiving compensation to do so). I am happy to call these people my friends, and there is no reason why anyone should be up in arms about a something free(the file is on trial, not the program, as Lone Wolf refuses to create files because of this type of situation). If the file is not the way you want it then change it, go for it! For those not programmingly inclined, you do know how to use a pencil, right? Just pencil in your changes, atleast then people will know that the it might be a questionable circumstance.
It is clearly stated(regardless to what Army Builder says) that AB40k.org is an INDEPENDENT entity, that has a list of specific rules on their site that are followed to the T.
I fully agree with your comments Ghaz. Some people just want to have a file that is the way they want it, regardless to the chance that their list may not be 100% legal. I would prefer to have a file that is designed to error on the side of legality when it comes to what is published by GW/FW.
Along with what jlong has stated above, I will proceed to regularly contact GW, asking for those published clarifications that we all need as a gaming communtity when a badly written codex comes out. Hopefully if we all start working together we may actually get somewhere.

To be fair to both sides, there are quick and simple solutions for either party. People who can used Klaws but AB won't allow it can simply write them in. People who can't use Klaws could have a warning or caution or a checked option in Army Rules box.

I do agree with KiMonarrez in that the attitude and arguments put forth against any option to use Klaws sounds weak. The current AB file allows for Imperial Armor, VDR, and lots of other things not allowed at tournaments or even in most casual play. I simply fail to see how including it as an option, with no Klaw as default, hurts anybody's use of the program. I do see how not allowing it at all does hurt the use of the program, if only a little bit.

All in all, it's a trifle, but it's a trifle either way...

Tournament play is not the deciding factor what makes the ab files, it published rules from either FW or GW.

Not affiliated with Wolflair?!?!

I check for updates using AB and it gives me the one's you've developed and maintain.

If I, as an end user wish the product I purchased to have a loose ruleset, exactly as advertised and the maintainers (volunteer or not) don't provide that, guess what. It's still your issue. Much the same as candystripers in hospitals, you guys are volunteers (whom I deeply respect the service you provide), but that doesn't mean a candystriper can start medicating as he/she sees fit.

If this remains an issue as such, I will demand a full refund of the money I spent for a product that didn't work AT ALL after I bought it, works now on accident, and then doesn't provide the service/operability of the product as advertised. I would spread the word for others to do the same as well. Enough people start doing that, see how long you remain an "independent entity."

*edited after re-reading Fyrebyrds post*

I agree we should try to keep the pressure on GW to make a better product in the first place. I'm not holding my breath though, if past experience is anything to go by.

Ghaz, the fact is that many ork players who are attending adepticon want a datafile that allows them to take an option that has a legal GW FAQ supporting it, as well as an event ruling supporting it.

It's the biggest GW event in North America, and you guys are, for whatever reason, hamfistedly refusing to enable your datafiles support what the attendees of that event need. So I posted a version that does what you will not allow.

It's a shame, because I'd much prefer to be able to just use the datafiles that you guys work on, but your egos have gotten in the way of utility. Why not add the useful options that you might not personally agree with, and then add a "RAW" ruleset option that disables them. Wouldn't that make the most people happy without doing a lot of work?

KiMonarrez wrote:Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

OK, Lets be clear. AB doesn't 'allow' this and only show a validation warning. Its a warning to indicate the error of your list. This isn't a point in which the user is allowed to 'choose' to continue, but it's a point to say 'HEY' you made a mistake and it 'MUST' be fixed. Not every rules variation is able to be cleanly coded for in AB and thus must be handled with a less controlled warning instead of simply preventing them outright. This is not to say they cannot be prevented, but for programming ease many cases are handled this way.

Case in point: I maintain the Necron Datafiles which the Necron Codex states no more than 1 C'tan may be included in the Army. AB allows you to add both(incorrectly) as its a heck of a lot easier for me to allow this and provide an alert for the error, than to code a convoluted method of removing the option for the C'tan upon adding one. This isn't a choice the user gets in making his army, the Codex is clear on the rule.

You continue to claim that warnings have been provided to allow greater flexibility, but that just isn't the case. The rules of games are very concrete and provide a way to do something and ways to not do something. Some coding methods allow these to be handled by not providing options, but others must be handled as warnings.

KiMonarrez wrote:I'll reiterate. Wolflair SPECIFICALLY stated they wanted 3.0 to have looser rules so you COULD do exactly like he's asking, and then throw up a validation message. You re-introduced the problem/issue/error/whateveryouchosetocallit.

Again, see my point above. Wolflair has NO stance on how the tool is used to create specific datafiles. They have provided a tool that allows many options, but that is not to say ALL options should be used in every instance. Clearly, fair and legal lists should always be the goal for every game system. I doubt this would be a concern within GW's own army building software as they allow NO rules disputed options anyway. Of course, that software is never updated.

KiMonarrez wrote:Not trying to start a flamewar over this, but it smacks of petulant "I don't wanna." Yeah, we understand you don't necessarily agree, and aren't 100% certain it's correct. You're also (by definition) not 100% certain it's not correct. Allow the loose rule (as intended) and throw up the validation message/warning. Nobody is asking you to be 100% correct. They're asking you to allow the usability of the tool they purchased.

What EXACTLY is gained by a validation warning? Will the opponent of the said army KNOW about the warning? If we throw the validation warning and its ignored then the oponents doesn't know its a disputed variance of the rules. If we include the warning on the output page, we continue to get this same argument rehashed again as we are saying the list may not be legal. Users complain about that as well. We at one time tried providing this methodology, but due to the hassle of complaining users then on the outputs it was decided to eliminate these completely by not allowing anything but the strictest legal view possible. Again, this IS NOT an AB issue or a datafile maintainer issue. It is a GW issue where they MUST provide a clear FAQ to fix the disputed rule.

KiMonarrez wrote:As for what the "majority of the users want". If they don't want it, they won't give the powerklaw to the nob. It's the same as the Stability Control on my car. The button to turn it off is there for those who want it. I have never used it, and probably never will, just like most drivers who have bought cars like mine, but the option is there. Having the option is all he's asking.

And again, the option HE is asking for would allow him to create a list indicating a valid army to play against YOU. Would YOU want this if you DID NOT agree with the disputed rule? Again, if the warning is displayed(you would know about it) but HE would continue to complain that we are saying it's possibly NOT valid) hence why we don't allow it at all.

Wolflair will not now and will never ever be able to provide you with files for any game system until they enter into a licensing agreement.

Since GW are pricks with their agreements, and they are money losers for the other side, odds are Wolflair (yes, all two of them) will reject any such agreement...

Since GW has proven they cannot code even simple websites (sorry guys) let alone flash or hire anything remotely close to a competent programmer...

Since GW cannot make web updates like oh all the other companies eating into GW's market share in huge quantities (as a user, I like to call it active customer service) and their support for their own product was so poor they'd not update a army for YEARS (where the AB maintainers update exactly 1 month after the Codex release, every time)...

Since the 'free' web version is well pretty craptacular and in murky legal waters, well good luck with that as any kind of solution. It's because the AB maintainers have listened to GW issues and are volunteers that the project still lives on...

You can complain all you want, and while Ghaz isn't exactly Mr. Personality until you are willing to put in the hundreds of hours a month the many people at that site do to create the product, you really should be happy you have a working product. No idea what you are going off about, KiMonarrez. Performance issues on a modern day computer? What, 21k and a couple threads is too much? Stop using a computer from 92...oh wait, it runs just fine on those. You get exactly what you paid for in AB, a program that lets you use third party datafiles to create army lists and validate them. Read that EULA again...

Many game companies would not have as many dedicated people playing their games that they do without AB and the volunteers that create the datafiles.
Ignoring GW's track record of not doing this, most of the companies use AB as a tool themselves to see how their own published rules stack up and issuing fixes in part based on how easy it is to analyze a given army when using AB. I laugh at people that create excel files for an army and then snort at AB. Usually one ass drubbing of their sh*t army with a AB refined one is enough to convince them to spend 30$.

Good luck using anything else, or doing better yourself.
Lots of ungrateful asshats around. I see quite a few in this thread who should be happy there's an alternative to paper and pen that takes all of 30 seconds to create an army list from.

What do I know. Oh yeah, I ran that silly group of misfits for years. Migrated the files from 2.0 to 3.0, and just fyi this quote:

"Decrease the number of hard limits imposed by Army Builder and flag validation errors instead, allowing more flexibility for friendly games with special (i.e. loose) criteria."

You've no idea what that really means. So I'll explain it to you.

Number of hard limits imposed by AB meant the damn program wouldn't let you program in alot of stuff that the 40k maintainers (not anybody else) wanted to.

You know, the 'cool' and 'fun' stuff. This is what drove alot of the AB3.0 development, it was the 40K maintainers wanting to give MORE than they already were. Gee, volunteers signing up for more work--and do you think they got their resource books for free from GW? No, they went and spent their money on it, for something they'd probably never use themselves, merely because they felt there was a need.

It had nothing to do with 'are power klaws on nobs' legal or any crap like that.

Fact is, in the RAW it isn't legal. In the RAI, it is. In tournament games, well you better hope the tournament organizer allows it else that PK nob is going off the table. In friendly games, who cares what you do? The maintainers do! They added all the FW stuff, all the white dwarf lists, all the summer campaigns...most of which isn't legal for tournament games.

So before you go off on the maintainers not allowing a 'obvious' error read that Ork Codex again and since the rule is NOT clear that you can do something, it does not go into the official datafiles.

Being this way has made the datafiles as good as they are, for many many years. GW hasn't come down on the volunteers much, and I'm pretty sure if they wanted PK nobs to exist in the datafiles word would 'slip' to the maintainers, and it'd go in.

It's not like they're some underground anti-GW hacking community or something, they're right there and easy to contact.

jlong05 wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:Are you listening to yourself now?

Perfect example is the error I found for commissars in heavy platoons. That's clearly an error in the datafile, but AB allows me to do it and throws up an validation message. Exactly as was intended when Wolf Lair designed 3.0 to redress this issue in 2.0.

Now look at the 2nd little paragraph I wrote. I currently am trying to do something patently legal and supported by the rules in the codex (on page 40) for the imperial guard. AB allows me to do it, and then flags a verification warning. But I can still do it. I can still print it. I'll mail you a copy I printed up if you like. Has the 2 validation errors on it bright as day.

That's all he's asking.

In friendly, or tournament play for that matter, you should (and are sometimes required to) let your opponent look at your list.

"Oh ho!!!! AB says this isn't legal."
"Well, here's my codex, let's look at the rule in question and discuss it."

*ending 1* "I see your point. I guess AB might be wrong on this. We'll play it as we agreed."
*ending 2* "I disagree with you, I don't think it's right." *and here we either dice it, or I concede the point*

This is all he's asking. Is it REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK?!?!?!?

Sorry, let me get this right redbeard.



A vocal minority (adepticon whiners) want to run what isn't legal in the Codex and is (despite your saying it is) NOT supported by GW at the moment.

In case you didn't know this, all of GW's different countries run themselves. What applies in Germany does not, actually, apply in the United States. In case you didn't know this, my apologies, wake up and smell the coffee.

Everyone else playing by the 'rules' would include:

All GW players (except German ones) that aren't going to Adepticon...so pretty much everyone else should use a illegal list because they (the Adepticon players) want to?

Well, here's my response to that: F*ck 'em. If they want lascannons on their lootas, we should allow this? What if GW Italy says they can, for +5 points?

Let's all slide down the slippery slope of whining = results. Like all good Americans.

Or should I say, Adepticon-Americans.

:S :S

KiMonarrez wrote:Not affiliated with Wolflair?!?!

I check for updates using AB and it gives me the one's you've developed and maintain.

If I, as an end user wish the product I purchased to have a loose ruleset, exactly as advertised and the maintainers (volunteer or not) don't provide that, guess what. It's still your issue. Much the same as candystripers in hospitals, you guys are volunteers (whom I deeply respect the service you provide), but that doesn't mean a candystriper can start medicating as he/she sees fit.

If this remains an issue as such, I will demand a full refund of the money I spent for a product that didn't work AT ALL after I bought it, works now on accident, and then doesn't provide the service/operability of the product as advertised. I would spread the word for others to do the same as well. Enough people start doing that, see how long you remain an "independent entity."

*edited after re-reading Fyrebyrds post*

I agree we should try to keep the pressure on GW to make a better product in the first place. I'm not holding my breath though, if past experience is anything to go by.

Also you should understand that the Lonewolf License agreement states that the datafiles are provided as is with no guarentee for them. This is why they also provide a Datafile Authoring Kit, which you can use to CREATE your own datafiles. The License you paid is for the AB solftware only with NO datafiles. These are created outside of the tool and are provided as is, when available.

Oh, and Stelek. The computer is new last year. I recieved the "support" e-mail yesterday. It consisted (basically) of "do what you have already done twice, and hope it works this time." I'm paraphrasing, of course, as I had already uninstalled, redownloaded and tried reinstalling it about 5 times. Care to know the definition of insanity?!?!

As for tech savyness (is that a word?), I would often maintain AB for myself in v2 as the updates were somewhat erratic, and sometimes a long time in coming (as is to be expected if a new Chapter approved just came out or something). I'm more than capable of doing it for v3. The hardest part is figuring out what the files are named, and I haven't the time to sit down and decypher it at the moment.

Basically, SOD OFF.

Well, if AB doesn't work try this:

Run MSCONFIG.

Go to services tab.

Click 'hide all microsoft services'.

Click 'disable all'.

Go to the startup tab.

Click 'disable all'.

Disable any AV or anti-spyware program running. Especially the 'free' popular ones given to you on new PC's, they're almost always gak.

Reboot your machine.

If AB won't run then, I'll laugh my ass off. (Oh, and make sure your hard drive isn't full...very little runs well when it is).

I'll sod off later when the wifes done the laundry.

The problems in v2 are why I took over the datafiles. I got sick and tired of them being gak, so I did something about it instead of whine like a little bitch.

One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

Polonius wrote:One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

I don't think Ghaz (or anyone else) has said that shooty klaws are illegal.

Personally I don't want them to be, because it ruins my planned Ork army.

They may or may not be 100% illegal, but until GW gets off it's ass and says so in a US or UK 'official' FAQ it's not possible for the maintainers to allow it without rewriting the rules.

Something you might note doesn't sit well with alot of people (thus the bitching about the adepticon faq).

Just something to keep in mind--volunteers don't get to override the rules and keep doing what they're doing without GW tapping them on the shoulder with a 'oiy mate, got a Q for ya'. I know, I had quite a few of those when I was running the maintainers. So the policy is don't piss in the GW sandbox, and everyone can keep playing there.

A vocal minority (adepticon whiners) want to run what isn't legal in the Codex and is (despite your saying it is) NOT supported by GW at the moment.

I believe there's a 12+ page long thread somewhere on this site discussing whether or not this is a legal option. That's hardly cut&dried "isn't legal". That's something that's poorly written and open to interpretation. 12+ pages of discussion means it's open to interpretation. I don't want AB to support illegal options, I want them to take the more liberal approach with the poorly written entries that are open to interpretation, and create datafiles that allow the end-user to decide for themselves which interpretation they want to go with.

In case you didn't know this, all of GW's different countries run themselves. What applies in Germany does not, actually, apply in the United States. In case you didn't know this, my apologies, wake up and smell the coffee.

Is it possible for you to post without being an ass?

Let's all slide down the slippery slope of whining = results. Like all good Americans.

1) slipery slope is a logical falacy, so whatever.
2) I'm not American

Polonius wrote:One quick hit: While apparently some people have firmly decided the RAW legality of Shoota/Klaws (sounds like some sort of gangland Kris Kringle), a lot of people fall into the "I really can't tell" category. This isn't a close but undeniable RAW issue, it's genuinely up for debate. To label those that play one way or the other as being clearly wrong is, IMO, stretching a point. Ghaz is correct in that the file is 100% legal, but to say that Shooty Klaws is 100% illegal is simply wrong.

And that is why they are not allowed in the files. NO MAINTAINER has stated that Shoota Nobs with Klaws IS 100% illegal. The problem is based on the wording is a HUGE grey area. As such we can't say if they are legal or not. We have some GW sponsored sites and events saying Yes its allowed, and others saying No its not allowed. As such, the Maintainers have decided that by NOT allowing it(and granting the user to edit manually by writing in the change) the files are 100% legal. Doing the other would indicate that the legality of the rules are now in question which is what is trying to be avoided. Again, this is a moot point. You have the ability to edit the files yourself, and others have by the OP statement at the beginning. Unfortunatly, AB's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.

If GW would simply update ist FAQs more regularly, or properly playtest their rules codexes, or maybe, just maybe, properly EDIT their Rules books, these issues can be resolved and avoided in the future. Until then, the datafiles will continue to be strict, Some users will be upset, and others will be happy.

I never really worried about it in the past, but its clear that editing of the files and even the printouts happens, so honestly, I cannot trust anyone I am not previously familiar with to create a valid list. This of course will just delay my gaming experience as now I clearly will have to fully evaluate every army I play against. Sad isn't it.

Hmm, I understand and appreciate your responses, but I suppose my question in response would be this: Things such as older special characters, alternate force charts for non-standard missions, apocolypse, COD, and most relevantly, the Cursed founding Space marine lists are all opponents or TO permission, yet are still all selectable options in the New Army window. While these are legal according to GW, they are specifically opponents permssion.

While the question of ShootyClaws isn't exactly the same, why not make Klaws opponents permission, just like any other option? Because the rules can go either way, the Klaw has effectively become opponents permission. Bury the option, so that folks using the codex rules won't accidently unlock it, add the warning like the cursed founding has that the rule is unresolved, and then everybody is happy?

I can understand wanting to keep the files kosher, but I could add a Warhound titan to Orks using totally legal, albiet opponents permisison only, rules found in the data file.

There is precedent for adding options that aren't always legal, is my point.

Problem with this line of thinking, Polonius, is this:

GW sets what is opponent's permission.

Since they didn't set the PK to opponent's permission, it means it cannot be set to opponent's permission without GW actually doing so.

Which they'll never do. It'll either be legal, or left FUBAR.

FUBAR means it won't go in the datafiles.

Polonius wrote:Hmm, I understand and appreciate your responses, but I suppose my question in response would be this: Things such as older special characters, alternate force charts for non-standard missions, apocalypse, COD, and most relevantly, the Cursed founding Space marine lists are all opponents or TO permission, yet are still all selectable options in the New Army window. While these are legal according to GW, they are specifically opponent’s permission.

While the question of ShootyClaws isn't exactly the same, why not make Klaws opponents permission, just like any other option? Because the rules can go either way, the Klaw has effectively become opponent’s permission. Bury the option, so that folks using the codex rules won't accidently unlock it, add the warning like the cursed founding has that the rule is unresolved, and then everybody is happy?

I can understand wanting to keep the files kosher, but I could add a Warhound titan to Orks using totally legal, albeit opponents permission only, rules found in the data file.

There is precedent for adding options that aren't always legal, is my point.

Although Stelek beat me to the reply, he is correct. You have identified a solid list of alternate (opponent’s permission) rules. But they have been identified by GW and/or FW specifically as opponents permission. Opponents Permission is simply a rule that says, 'although these have been designed, maybe tested, and seem fun' they are not part of any legal army rules and as such must be agreed to by your opponent first. Mainly this is because those specific rules are found in alternate source locations that may not be available to the general public. Not every LGS carries FW products and books, and not every person is privy to every GW rules set that was provided through Whitedwarf, so, often these get released as opponents permission to allow an opponent the option to say No to a game. Tournaments in many cases allow or disallow these rules outright so that decision is made prior to any games being setup. The Ork Powerklaw is not an Opponents permission rule from a GW or FW standpoint. It's a broken rule is a new rulebook that is unclear on the actual availability of the option. Although it may be played as opponent’s permission in friendly games or at tournament events, it is not ruled that way from GW. As the effort the maintainers try to do is a 100% always legal army list as identified by GW or FW the PK will have to wait for a FAQ update. The rule sets you identified 'are' opponent’s permission, but are still fully 100% legal army lists and options as indicated by GW and/or FW, they simply advise you get your opponents permission first. That is why those have been included within the AB datafiles.

Thank you for discussing this with a level head, it is generally better than the typical flaming that tends to arise from these sorts of discussions. And as you have provided examples of situations that are similar I wanted to personally acknowledge your efforts. Please understand that this has nothing to do with Soap Boxes, High Horses, or Egos. It is simply an effort by gamers to provide gamers with accurate tools for gaming. If we all ambiguity to the datafiles, we introduce more issues and concerns than we gain in user friendliness and community happiness. This is from ears, quite literally, of doing datafile maintenance on the 40k files. No matter what we will always have the user that wants something added that isn't there because rule A isn't being evaluated the way they would evaluate it. When it’s black and white it’s easy to fix, but when it’s grey, we have to lean to the cautionary side and make something not allowed until the ruling becomes clear.

As indicated before, as the datafiles are maintained in English and is supported by developers in the US and UK, only the US or UK sites are used is validation of rules changes. This isn't to say other sites make good rules updates, it’s to say, I don't speak other languages nor am I qualified to understand the basis for a change made in another language. Again, I ask the user community of the files to contact GW to have the rules updated via FAQ. This is more than an AB file issue, it's a GAME issue. The GAME is broken when there is grey in the rules. Have them fix it in Black and White.

If you can do a great job maintaining these files for years and develope any sort of ego about it, then you're a better man than I, but that's neither here nor there.

I worry that your (Jlong and Stelek)'s line of reasoning is influenced by a desire to reach a foregone conclusion. The argument against including Shooty Klaws while keeping other opponents permission stuff is simple: GW says specials characters are legal, just opponents permission only, and Klaws aren't legal by GW, so therefore not OP. Simple enough, really.

The problem there is that it assumes that Shooty Klaws are inherently illegal, when there inherently ambigous. Here's my line of reasoning:
Codex Orks is legal
I read the entry on boys, and see that there is an ambiguity.
The RAW can go either way (as dicussions ad nauseum show)
I apply my logic and reason, and decide that yes, they are allowed.
However, because I know that the rule is ambigous, I realize that I will have to brief every opponent and ask every TO if they agree with my assesment.

At that point, the rule has effectively become Opponents Permission. the only way it wouldn't be is if there were no valid way for the Klaw to be legal, which is essentially the argument you are making. Keep in mind that GW's policy on rules disputes is to consult the rules, consult the FAQ, try to work out the RAW, try to work out the disagreement amiably, dice off; in that order.

If you walk into the process assuming Shooty Klaws is illegal, which from Stelek's posts here and in the past he clearly does, then your position makes a ton of sense: how can an illegal option ever be made legal? If, however, you approach it from a "It seems legal but I won't be shocked if people call me on it" angle.... well, I think the result is a bit different.

I use AB every day. The system is in and of itself the most useful tool a 40k player can utilize.

Stelek-i agree/disagre with a lot of your responses. What I mean is
"Yeah Stelek is SPOT ON with that point!", and then
"Crikey, Stelek can be a duffer!".
Still , Dakka would not be the same without you Sir.

Apart from a few little niggling points I have with AB(also considering my lazy-ass who won't do anything about it! lol) I love the program.

@ Polonius- You Sir, are the paragon of polite. I loved reading your well thought out posts, that never decended to verbally attacking people/opinions. Good on you mate!

Ambiguity is not for you, I, yakface, the 40k maintainers...or pretty much anyone to resolve except for GW.

There are many poorly written rules in the 40k universe. Sadly, this is one of them. In the same Codex, the rules for the bike mounted guns are different yet I don't see anyone yelling about making a new AB file because the gun stats don't show them to be twin-linked (which they are).

Why? Because warbikers aren't that good, and for purposes of the adepticon only warbosses are going to be mounted on bikes, and odds are no one will care if they shoot or not.

Why is this relevant? Because it is obvious to me (and probably a whole hell of a lot of other people) that quite a few of the players that attend the adepticon are whining pricks who want to have the power klaw on shooty mobs because it is a very powerful option and if they can't get it are going to kick up a shitstorm about it.

Doesn't change the fact it isn't legal in the rest of the warhammer world, and regardless of what yakface changed the rules to say in the adepticon faq the rulebook isn't somehow "ambigious". It's really quite clear. You can't have a power klaw on a shoota boyz nob.

How does an illegal option get made legal?

GW changes it.

Not you, me, yakface, the 40k maintainers, or anyone else.

Being able to play with power klaws on shoota boyz at adepticon is allowed at that tournament.

Doesn't make it legal. Doesn't make for a better tournament, either. Not sure I could get used to playing adepticon-40k with non-40k maintainer army builder files and be able to play the real game of 40k with everybody else. Oh well, that lot won't be missed.