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.

By the way, I looked at the adepticon FAQ and at the AB files.

I stopped counting when the differences between the AB files and the "rules" [using the term loosely] in the Adepticon FAQ reached one hundred.

Redbeard, you have less than a month to make a dataset for the adepticon ruleset.

One down, ninety-nine [or more] to go.

I don't expect you to actually do this, since it's obvious to me you're playing Orks and want things your way...but color me purple if you do.

KiMonarrez, the validations you are seeing are due to the bug report you filed, and Ghaz had already addressed that - don't go comparing that to something that is working as the maintainers expected. If the Commissars weren't supposed to be on HW platoons they wouldn't be there at all. The bug will be addressed. I've added a comment to your report, but as Ghaz stated just because there's no reply doesn't mean it's being ignored - comments are usually used to ask for more info, or for the maintainer to state when it will be fixed.

Whatever beef you have with the AB software not working properly you'll have to take up with Wolflair, but demanding a refund just because you don't like the way the AB40k files are done isn't going to get you anywhere with them. When you bought the AB software you were not buying into the files too - if you don't like them the way they are, you can download the ABCreator software and edit them yourself to match what you think is right.

And as to the Power Klaw issue, I fully support the maintainer stance, and I myself consider the RaW not allowing the option. Until GW UK/US publishes an official FAQ as a PDF it should remain as it is. The AB40k files need to be able, as fully as possible, to only be used to build rules legal lists - allowing the Klaw on a Shoota nob will only serve to confuse those players who use it and are not aware of the issue. With the current stance at worst a player will have to change his list manually, which is better than having a player turn up to a GW run event and find their list is illegal (which is what would happen with the UK GT, for instance).

Stelek wrote:
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.

Stelek wrote:
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.

i apologize for pulling two quotes out of context, but it appears to me that you are arguing two seperate, and incompatible avenues here. In my earlier post I discussed how a true rules ambiguity could be resolved, and the response was that to you, the option isn't ambigous and is clearly illegal. If that is the position taken by the maintainers, then, as the OP rather impolititely asserted, they have made a ruling beyond their ken as maintainers. As volunteers, they are welcome to simply state that this is the way they are doing business now, but the response I've been getting from currently active maintainers (which, IIRC stelek is not at the moment) is that they want to avoid confusion and provide a fully legal list to the end user.

Stelek's position, if I am reading it correctly, is that the Shooty Klaws option is clearly illegal, and should not therefore make any appearance in the AB file. If his assertion is true, of course, then he is correct. Since I challenge his assertion, I don't accept his argument, but since the dispute is based on differences in starting points, future debate is probably fruitless.

This leaves the question to Ghaz and the other maintainers that have joined in (welcome to Dakka, btw!): do you agree with Stelek's POV, and if so, how do you respond to the charge that making such a rules decision is inapporpriate. If not, how to answer to my assertion that any confusion on this issue is caused by GW, not AB, and if AB fails to reflect the truly fractured legality of this option, it is less then complete. IMO, it's important for people playing both ways to know that the other way exists and, IMO, has a valid argument.

Wow. A lot of not reading going on.

I had an issue with AB's operability, because the darned thing wouldn't run. THAT is what pissed me off. It's working now, and I'll thank my lucky stars, as AB is an application I really enjoy using... when it's working.

The issue the OP has is something I was unaware of, as I play Dark Angels and haven't found anything remotely similar. However, if I were to find something in the codex that sounded reasonable and legal (as opposed to blatantly illegal), and AB doesn't allow me to use it... yur durn tootin' I'd take issue with it. That is why I "took up the flag" for the OP. Especially after reading that little blurb in the authoring kit.

I take issue with "the few" (the maintainers) imposing their view (that I don't happen to agree with, and apparently others as well) upon the whole.

I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW". That's blatant hypocrisy.

Luckily, the OP had the technical knowhow to FIX the error of ommission, and posted his gripe on Dakka.

The commissar problem I reported was due to finding a bug, and hoping to improve the final product for others. I have exactly ZERO problems building the list ,as is, and printing it, as is (with it's 2 validation errors) and pointing out the error, as is, (if it's brought up) by showing the pertinent rules in the codex. I would have SERIOUS problems if (instead of how it is now) I found that AB wouldn't allow me to attach the commissar to a heavy weapon platoon by design and the AB maintainers refused to fix it. that. I'm taking issue with the mindset, or the policy, which I feel is clearly not aligned with how AB should work (especially noting that little blurb from the development of 3.0).

THAT'S the issue.

Now, I also asked about nobody taking notice of the bug I noted. It seemed that (from reading other bugs) if the error was valid (as it clearly was) the error would be "confirmed". If a few days go by and nothing happens to the post, it gives the impression that nobody is doing anything about it, valid or not. Ghaz noted that the issue was confirmed and he just didn't post. The issue was dropped.

Oh, and "Welcome to Dakka" to the other maintainers.

Don't mind the trolls.

How many times have i said this I am not a Troll. Look get over it Ghaz does have a life outside this forum.

GET BACK IN YOUR HOLE!!!!

Durn trolls.








j/k Beef. You know I love ya, even if you du murdrr the printted Englische.

Agree with KiMonarrez, and also wanted to say that the attitudes of the AB maintainers, while not affiliated with Wolf Lair, reflect poorly on Wolf Lair and their product by way of the discussion in this thread.

Because of this, I will not be purchasing the Army Builder software, and will encourage others in my group to do the same.

What bugs me--and I have been making this point in my last few posts--is not so much the fact that the maintainers have made this decision, but that they're (and I'm sorry if I'm generalising unfairly based on Ghaz) so damned defensive about it. No one is forcing you guys to make the change any more than you're forcing us to use your files. We are free to use or not use your files, and you are free to follow or not follow our requests (and I am of course aware that different users make different and sometimes incompatible requests). Even if you insist on standing firm (and as we've seen, it is not that frustrated users have no recourse--others can alter the files too) there is no need to insult and attack people who are, in essence, trying to help you improve the thing you're trying to create. Yes, they are telling you what constitutes "improvement" as they see it, but that is all anyone can do.

I know you've heard it before, and I know you must be tired of it, but ffs, one would think feedback were an utterly unprecedented concept going by Ghaz's reaction.

For the record, I use army builder and it generally meets my needs (though admittedly I do not play Orks). In fact, I usually go out of my way to recommend Army Builder to my friends. However, I absolutely can not recommend it to my friend that recently started playing orks or to anyone else that primarily plays Orks.

In the group that I play with we've discussed the issue of Nobs with Power klaws and we've decided that the intent was to allow them to have power klaws so we are going to allow it (and this seems to be the shared opinion of the majority of people with the notable exceptions of the UK GT people and apparently the Army Builder Data file maintainers). Because of the arbitrary decision made by the maintainers of the data file Ork players in my area are unable to properly use a product that they are going to have to pay for if they are going to use. Because of this it just isn't a good decision for them to buy army builder. Until GW releases an official FAQ the resolves this issue one way or the other I really don't see why you can't just leave it to the end user as to how he wants to equip his Nobs and how he wants to interpret what is a poorly written entry in the Ork Codex.

To summarize, what I'm saying is that you, the data file maintainers , in making the decision to disallow orks with powerklaws in shoota squads are doing a disservice to both Wolf Lair and to the end users (paying customers) of Army Builder. The arrogant and defensive attitude of the maintainers is also not helping things either.

I would also like to applaud RedBeard for the modified data file, thanks!

I know you've heard it before, and I know you must be tired of it, but ffs, one would think feedback were an utterly unprecedented concept going by Ghaz's reaction.

Disclaimer: I am a disinterested party; I neither play orks nor write AB datafiles.

The tone in the thread began as...assertive, and quickly progressed to arrogant, as directed towards the AB40k team. Constructive feedback is useful, but statements like "Since the maintainers of the ArmyBuilder wh40k4 datafiles seem to be more interested in their ego trip as rules judges than as maintainers of a tool that people find useful" are far more likely to provoke a defensive response from Ghaz et al.

If we wanted to open a dialogue on the philosophy behind the AB40k rules position, there were much better ways to do it. I read the original post as a self-promotional troll, and that's without anything like the (uncompensated) investment of time in the datafiles that the maintainers have.

And yes, once defensive responses started, the thread degenerated, plus Stelek added his own special brand of commentary.



For the AB40k maintainers, and all other dataset authors: thank you very much for the time and effort you've devoted to providing us ungrateful lot with free tools. Given how long it takes to develop even the most simplistic spreadsheet approach to army list automation, I am thrilled to have the benefits of your labor.

tomguycot wrote:To summarize, what I'm saying is that you, the data file maintainers , in making the decision to disallow orks with powerklaws in shoota squads are doing a disservice to both Wolf Lair and to the end users (paying customers) of Army Builder. The arrogant and defensive attitude of the maintainers is also not helping things either.

I would also like to applaud RedBeard for the modified data file, thanks!

The maintainers paid for AB too.

They don't get paid to make the datafiles.

Redbeard used the maintainer datafile and changed one thing.

5 minutes "work" versus the many hours the actual maintainer spent writing that file.

In the end, being ungrateful is expected by the maintainers.

Believing they are using their so-called "power" for evil is also expected.

Blaming the volunteers for doing what they can with what they have to work with instead of yelling at GW for being asshats about immediately fixing their f*cked up rules, is also pretty normal.

Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

Janthkin wrote:The tone in the thread began as...assertive, and quickly progressed to arrogant, as directed towards the AB40k team...

That is correct, on this site. The original discussion started on the AB40k site, but Ghaz's attitude towards people suggesting anything meant that any thread involving this topic got locked there. In order to have any sort of open dialog about changes to the AB40k maintainer's policies, you have to use an external site, as they quash any discussion contrary to their position on their own forums.

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

At least it's nice to know why Ghaz wasn't exactly pleasant to your whining if you started it over there. lol

Stelek wrote:
Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

I'd be where I am when a new codex is release, but before their month of exclusion is over - I'd write my own. It's really not very hard, and it doesn't take that long. You make it sound like they're working overtime on this stuff. It takes two or three hours to write a datafile, especially to the style that the new codexes are laid out in. Maybe longer if you're not too familiar with the interface, but once you get that down, it really doesn't take a lot of time. Three hours every three months when a new codex is released - I've seen people do more 'work' in producing step-by-step painting tutorials.

The thing about work like this is that it only has to be done once. There's no reason for anyone else to release the datafiles that they've worked on as long as the AB40k team is releasing them. Or, at least, there wasn't. Perhaps this sort of dogged refusal to create datafiles that the community is clearly interested in is enough to get a competing datafile set together.

Good luck with that.

Lemme get this straight, Stelek.

3 posts back you complain that the maintainers volunteer their time and effort to do a thankless and demanding job. So demanding and thankless that you ended up quitting.

Then the OP makes a suggestion, and then even does the work FOR THEM, and gets snubbed. Repeatedly.

So... if it's so thankless, you'd think they'd like someone assisting them in making a better product. As opposed to snubbing, belittlement, and oh yeah, implying his work just wasn't good enough (doesn't fit OUR rules).

If it looks, smells and sounds like arrogance.... it probably is.

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

Well yeah, why not? Yak doesn't quash criticism of Dakka policies when they arise. He may not change them, and he may continue issue warnings or bans in response to actual infractions of them, but I do not recall him (or Russ before him) ever declaring nope, that's enough, no more discussion of this because I say so.

Of course, no one is obligated to conform to a similarly noble code. 40ko and Warseer sure don't.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:

You mean, when they follow their own rules about the datafiles and you tell them to sod off or fix it...they should let you?

Well yeah, why not? Yak doesn't quash criticism of Dakka policies when they arise. He may not change them, and he may continue issue warnings or bans in response to actual infractions of them, but I do not recall him (or Russ before him) ever declaring nope, that's enough, no more discussion of this because I say so.

Of course, no one is obligated to conform to a similarly noble code. 40ko and Warseer sure don't.

Heresy!

Reported.

When the discussion ends up being 'you and everything you do sucks because my 0.3% of the gaming crowd DEMAND you change the way you've been doing things for years because we WANT something besides the legal datafiles you gave us' you really think that's going to last more than 5 seconds on anybody's website?

Be serious.

Kimonarrez, redbeard wasn't snubbed. He was told the rules the maintainers operate by. He told them it was legal and he couldn't prove it but dammit he wanted it.

Let's see, the rules are here: http://www.ab40k.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=850

The thread in question is here:
http://www.ab40k.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=796&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Gee, the maintainers sure seem like crazy pitchfork-wielders out to get ya in those two threads.

This datafile doesn't make a better product, it just makes an illegal one.

By the way, when are you going to incorporate the 100+ rules changes Yak made in his FAQ to the datafile?

Until you answer why you only 'fixed' the one inconvenient issue for you personally without incorporating all the others, you will still sound like a bunch of whining asshats to me. Maybe others don't think this is a bunch of bull and can clearly see just how magnanimous redbeard is in fixing just his one issue while leaving all the other 'problems' in the adepticon FAQ out of his datafile.

Remember, it's apparently only 3 hours every 3 months (lol man that's good for a laugh) so get crackin!

Enshrining a principle in the Forum Rules doesn't mean you're not a for holding to that principle.

Stelek wrote:

Sadly, the maintainers can do nothing but quit in response to your whining.

Where would you be then.

In the same place I was before Redbeard's modification ...using pen and paper to make Ork army lists. I fail to see how I'd be that much worse off.

This thread is devolving. I've done my best to explain my points, I appreciate the responses. Between the initial OP and some of the responses, the thread got hot in a hurry, and it obscured what for me is the core issue: why was the option to include shooty klaws not included.

Based on the responses of the maintainers, and their responses to IMHO a pretty well reasoned and argued plan to include the option, I think that there was a kernel of truth to the OP's claim: the decision was made less out of a desire to serve the public as well as possible, and more out of some agenda. Now, this is certianly not a sinister or malevolent agenda, but there is, IMO, no solid reason not to listen to the feedback given and include this change in the next batch of updates.

Despite some claims made to the contrary, i think a sizable pluarality (if not majority) of players either play that Klaws are legal by RAW, ambigious but allowed under RAW, don't care about RAW and allow them, or simply haven't read the rules that closely. I doubt it's simply Adepticon attendees and organizers, or a paltry minority who would object to the option being included. Attempts to minimize or trivialize this demographic I think are self defeating: If the minority is that small, simply ignore them! Don't engage and look petty and defensive.

Finally, while the maintainers volunteer their time and services, and frankly don't get the accolades they are due, they are volunteers, not conscripts. Many people devote time and energy to activities that do not pay them, and they do so for many reasons. Because of this, there is often a certain amount of discretion and power that is given to these people. This is expected and understood. Do not use the excuse that they are volunteers to shield them from criticism. They are, I'm assuming, reaping some benefit from the activity that makes them continue. I have tried to be as polite and rational as possible, and I agree that the OP was out of line in his accusations. However, if a person or group of people hold themselves above reproach, are defensive and/or insulting to those that question their decisions and/or motives, and refuse to yeild to requests... then I believe they have moved from benevolent stewards to a feeling of entitlement that no longer puts the overall goal first. I could be wrong, of course, but it's how it looks to me.

Stelek,

Regarding the public's perception about being able to take a powerklaw Nob in a shoota boyz unit, 82% of 141 votes is hardly a tiny minority and it has nothing to do with Adepticon.

It is a vast majority of players that believe (for whatever reason) that powerklaw Nobs in shoota squads are legal and the point of the INAT_FAQ is to run an event that has the smallest amount of squabbles as possible and a ruling that follows what 80% of the players already think does exactly that.


BTW, this isn't a commentary on the AB files, they are free to do whatever they want.

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.

First off, my thanks to the developers/maintainers who write the files, troubleshoot, etc. It's a near-thankless job. I want you to know that you make my gaming experience INFINITELY more enjoyable. I DO know it AND appreciate it.

Now, I'd like to add a (sort of) third "side" in the thread.
Although I've never posted on the Wolflair forums, I'm one of those people who say, "If it isn't supported by RAW, I don't want it in there." I get miffed when AB allows me to mistakenly do something I shouldn't, because I am NOT 100% on all of the rules. I understand, however, that it's sometimes easier to allow something with a flag than to write hours more code to DISallow it. Again, the maintainers are working on their own time... So, I understand.

I'm not saying that the people who want it there are "wrong," or should shut up or anything like that. I'm simply voicing for those who support it not being in there.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PK SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE NOB.
(Just for the record)
That belief, however, is not supported by RAW. Until it is, I support the datafile as-is.

Eric

Stated far mor eloquently than I would, Polonius. *ahem* Yeah!!! What he said.

KiMonarrez wrote:I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW".

Actually it was probably pointed out here or via another webiste - if you are playing using the DA or the BA codex, there is no stipulation about taking razorbacks with a squad size that the transport itself could not hold. Also for further proof on this, you can take a look at the recent chaos codex where several units have " You may take ~this~ as a dedicated transport" (with squads that have the capability of 20 members) while I believe that it is the Khorne Berserkers specifically mention that you cannot turn a Razorback into a clown car by forbidding a transport if the number of modelx exceeds "x".

shaggai wrote:

KiMonarrez wrote:I find it interesting that the maintainers "allow" AB to do things (via bug or intentionally) that are questionable ruleswise. Things like allowing codex marines (vice Dark Angels, or Blood Angels) to take razorback's w/ 10 man squads (though it's specifically disallowed in the codex). The maintainers allow the AB software to allow the blatantly illegal option, and throw up a validation warning. Yet they take the stance that something that's 100% open to interpretation due to shoddy rules is disallowed because "it's not 100% RAW".

Actually it was probably pointed out here or via another webiste - if you are playing using the DA or the BA codex, there is no stipulation about taking razorbacks with a squad size that the transport itself could not hold. Also for further proof on this, you can take a look at the recent chaos codex where several units have " You may take ~this~ as a dedicated transport" (with squads that have the capability of 20 members) while I believe that it is the Khorne Berserkers specifically mention that you cannot turn a Razorback into a clown car by forbidding a transport if the number of modelx exceeds "x".

I know that. Read what I wrote. Specifically the yellow bolded stuff. As in (per their codex) not allowed in Codex: Space Marine, allowed in Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Blood Angels.

I should thank you for bringing that back up again though. Where's the "AB datafiles won't allow anything that's not 100% RAW" on that, eh? If the claim for the Klaw is "not supported" then you had better darn well be implimenting it 100% across all the datafiles, else you're leaving a specific group out in the cold.

I can start digging up codex and compiling the list for you if you like.

Yak, we'll just have to disagree on that one.

I guess I should restate what I think I've already said:

I've seen Phil play and do know he intended for shoota boyz to get PK nobs.

I want shoota boyz to get PK nobs.

The rulebook says different. Until GW gets off their duff and says it's legal or it's not in a official FAQ, how can AB make the PK entry be part of the fileset without doing what yak has done and rewrite the game to their liking?

They've avoided doing that and remained 'neutral' on this subject for years, and GW rarely has had a problem with them as a result (because they don't rewrite the rules).

If you really think you can add a razorback to a SM unit over 6 models and get a validated-as-legal list, well, you're off your cookie because you cannot do so.
The list will print out as illegal. So it's working as intended, and so much for that 'argument'.

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?