Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

Buzzsaw wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

I can't speak for everyone, but the one time I saw someone bring a AB generated list to a tournament, we got halfway through before an observant bystander realized that said list was dramatically wrong. I suppose this is the danger of trust; we trusted the player to bring a legal list and he trusted his program would actually operate under the relevant rules. We were both proved foolish.

My gripes with AB are that, in my experience with people using it make lists, people assume that the program is right and don't double check it against their Codex to ensure things are correct. Which, if you stop for a moment, raises the question of why you should be paying for a glorified spreadsheet that you have to have check against the Codex against anyway... Beyond that, is the "convenience" of AB seriously worth paying for? Is there some widespread impediment to simply using Excel or (OpenOffice's) Calc for making lists?

Buzzsaw wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

I can't speak for everyone, but the one time I saw someone bring a AB generated list to a tournament, we got halfway through before an observant bystander realized that said list was dramatically wrong. I suppose this is the danger of trust; we trusted the player to bring a legal list and he trusted his program would actually operate under the relevant rules. We were both proved foolish.

Bookwrack wrote:I hear people call AB crap whenever it comes up, but funny how when called on it, they never expound on why. Odd, that.

And the whole Army Roster thing is just such an anti-surprise. The trouble they were making for themselves was plainly visible a mile away, When you're dealing with a company that is notoriously jealous in guarding its IP, putting up a site on the web that directly copies large chunks of their written data is a bad plan.

Bookwrack wrote:
No, it was only you who were foolish for believing his lie. If you do something illegal in army builder, it flashes a warning message that you're in violation (too many points, too many Heavy choices, too many terminators crammed into a Land Raider, whatever). If you somehow miss that warning, another warning window pops up that your list contains a rule violation when you try and save, or when you try and print. If his list was 'dramatically wrong,' then he ignored multiple explicit warnings when he made it, and if he did that than I seriously doubt that a list built with any other method would have been any better. AB was just a convenient scapegoat. It's not perfect, and while it's quite possible to accidentally make a small mistake, making dramatic ones isn't.

There's no impediment to using excel, save that as an app made specifically for managing army lists, AB is faster, better laid out, and more accurate than any spreadsheet I could throw together. Just like how, sure, I could do my taxes all by hand, or balance my budget using a pencil and a notepad, but the convenience and ease of use of turbotax and quicken make them infinitely preferable.

JokerGod wrote:I say it is crap because they are selling something that dos nothing. They are going to charge you (I believe its 40$, could be wrong) for a program that dos absolutely nothing at all other then take other files that where created by other people and they don't get gak for it.

Greetings,

Since this topic seems to be coming up on a recurring basis, I figured I would take the time to try and provide a little background on this issue. The reality is that we've been striving for more than a decade to work out an equitable license with GW to write official data files for their games. If you're interested in the history behind all this, read on for a recap of the past 11 years as it pertains to AB data files and why volunteers are writing them.

When AB was first prototyped back in 1997, it was designed exclusively as a tool for Warhammer Fantasy. That's simply because WHFB was the game I regularly played at the time. After seeing the prototype in action at local Cons, a few prominent GW players were emphatic that AB should be turned into an actual product. So I contacted GW and they expressed interest. I flew to the UK twice to meet with GW's senior staff about the project and everything looked like a go to publish AB as a GW product.

As development of AB 1.0 neared completion, nothing had been actually signed with GW, and it became apparent that the terms we originally discussed were no longer satisfactory to GW. I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable. So I was left with either taking what they offered or figuring out a different strategy.

I broke off discussions with GW and set about revising the AB release plan. After consulting with legal counsel, I concluded that I could safely publish the engine without any data files. As long as the product was "generic" and designed to work for a range of game systems, and as long as the data files for individual game system were not included, AB would be safe from any legal concerns. In order for Lone Wolf to develop or sell data files, a license from the game company is required. However, if all of the intellectual property of each game company resided in the data files, and those data files were not developed or sold by Lone Wolf, no license was required. AB would work a lot like Excel, with AB providing a generalized tool and the data files being comparable to spreadsheets.

Since I'd been doing software development for many years and learned from some of the best, AB had already been built around a data-driven engine. This made it easy to separate the data files from the actual product. The trick would be in making it possible for users to create and share those data files. I needed to formalize things better and document how the data formats worked so that users could write the data files for AB. I also needed to extend the engine for use with other miniatures game systems that were available. After a couple months of extra work, AB V1.0 was ready to go.

Once AB was officially released, GW immediately adopted an adversarial stance towards AB, threatening litigation and other actions. Given the way that AB was released, though, there was nothing GW could do. By having the data files decoupled from the product and entirely fan-created, AB was unassailable. More importantly, AB became an invaluable tool for a wide range of game systems as a result of its generic nature.

A year or two later, after AB had established itself as a solid product, GW decided internally that they needed their own product that did what AB did. GW retained a consultant to assess the costs and look at the various options available. He came to the conclusion that licensing AB for use by GW was the most sensible option and championed the idea internally at GW. Sadly, after months of discussions, the idea of licensing AB was ultimately shot down by GW's execs, and GW set about developing their first attempt at replacing AB.

I was already at work on AB 2.0, which raised the bar significantly over AB 1.x. Fortunately, when GW's Interactive Army List was finally released, it was unable to compete with AB. The success of AB earned further ire from GW's executive ranks, who maintained their adversarial stance towards AB. Among GW's creative staff, though, AB quietly and steadily became the tool of choice.

The "cold war" between GW and Lone Wolf persisted for a few years. During that time, key GW design staff volunteered that they all used AB in-house and thought that a formal licensing arrangement would be good for everyone. We finally got AB 3.0 out the door at the end of 2004. Meanwhile, GW came out with a new and improved IAL product. The new IAL met with a poor reception, as AB had already established itself as the de facto tool for miniatures games.

A few members of the GW design staff privately suggested to us that the failure of the second IAL release had resulted in a philosophical shift at GW. Apparently, the general attitude of the GW execs had become open to discussing a license for AB again. So we approached GW about the possibility. The overall process was extremely slow and required the GW licensing person to work carefully around some of the negativity that lingered towards AB. It seemed that progress was being made and that something would ultimately be worked out. Then the licensing person left GW and a new person took over, requiring us to essentially start over from the beginning again. We soldiered on, but we were unable to regain any serious traction with the new licensing person. After *three years* of ongoing discussions, GW finally made the decision this year that they were no longer interested and broke off talks.

Assuming we were to secure a formal license with GW, our plan was to quickly follow suit with all the other miniatures companies. Since they all generally view AB as a valuable tool for their games, we figured that it would be relatively easy to secure licenses with everyone else once GW was onboard. However, without the support of GW, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to secure those licenses. Overseeing development of all the data files in-house would be a lot of work that would entail significant cost. Since the GW data files are both the most popular and most complex, the greatest benefit would be gained by managing those data files with in-house oversight and control. Lacking the ability to officially do GW files, the perceived added value to users would not be sufficient to justify the additional product cost increases needed to pay for all the data file development. So we concluded that it was better to keep the price point unchanged and keep all the data files fan-created.

That pretty much sums up why Lone Wolf doesn't do any of the data files for miniatures games. We'd very much like to, and we've invested significant time and energy towards being able to do so. In fact, we started out with that goal in 1997 and have been striving to achieve that goal with GW for 11 years now. Alas, it's been to no avail. What I'd love more than anything is to work directly with the fans creating the data files for all the various games and pay them for their efforts. They could then put in more time and get compensated for their work, plus we could do better testing before release. We could also get pre-release information from the publishers so that data files are available when the products hit the street, instead of having development merely get *started* when each release comes out. It would be a win for everyone.

Sadly, GW has decided that it doesn't share that vision, which leaves us all with fan-created files that are developed on a purely volunteer basis. Volunteers mean we don't get to complain when the data files aren't completed as quickly as we'd like. These guys are doing a bang-up job on a very difficult task. We should all be thankful that they are investing all that time and energy for the rest of us to benefit from, without any compensation other than knowing they did a great job. I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied. If we did anything material for the volunteers, GW could claim that we're actually compensating them for their efforts, which would open everything up to legal recourse from GW. So all we can do here at Lone Wolf is express our thanks and keep hoping that someday we can work out something official with GW.

Thanks for listening....

strange_eric wrote:Uhm yeah I'm not sure you've used Army Builder before.. Cause they get army lists wrong sometimes (see: a lot). Out of the gate and fresh there's errors all over the place. Sometimes small, sometimes odd (like the new VC list which had a bug if you selected a certain vampire power it gave you an additional 25pts of Magic items for some reason). So don't go throwing out accusations so easily that the guys a liar. It took them year(s) to fix the last Chaos Codex. So yes dramatic problems are entirely possible.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

Ghaz wrote:

JokerGod wrote:I say it is crap because they are selling something that dos nothing. They are going to charge you (I believe its 40$, could be wrong) for a program that dos absolutely nothing at all other then take other files that where created by other people and they don't get gak for it.

It does exactly what it says that it does. As for the datafiles being created by someone else, place the blame where it belongs, with Games Workshop and not Lone Wolf.

...

Are you going to go blame Microsoft for selling Excel which 'does nothing'? Perhaps you should know the facts before you start hurling insults at somebody.

strange_eric wrote:Uhm yeah I'm not sure you've used Army Builder before.. Cause they get army lists wrong sometimes (see: a lot). Out of the gate and fresh there's errors all over the place. Sometimes small, sometimes odd (like the new VC list which had a bug if you selected a certain vampire power it gave you an additional 25pts of Magic items for some reason). So don't go throwing out accusations so easily that the guys a liar. It took them year(s) to fix the last Chaos Codex. So yes dramatic problems are entirely possible.

And the Fantasy files are totally separate from the 40K files which the people here are discussing. The 40K files are maintain by a dedicated group. The Fantasy files are maintained by a single person (or no one at times). So if they're talking about the 40K files, then their accusations are most likely correct and well founded.

Ghaz wrote:Grow up. If you were to bother to read the post instead of acting like a troll you would see that if he did give anything to the people who wrote the datafiles then GW would have a reason to shut him down.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

So there you go troll. Stop posting if you don't have a clue (which you obviously don't have).

I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable.

stonefox wrote:Yeah, well, it still doesn't change the reality of what he says. I guess LoneWolf's PR-rep is good enough that you'd hang on to that quote and dismiss anything else. All it takes is a few lines to tug the right heart strings and you'll have people exclaiming, "awwww, they really DO care for the people who make this do-nothing program profitable at all!"

Ghaz wrote:Grow up. If you were to bother to read the post instead of acting like a troll you would see that if he did give anything to the people who wrote the datafiles then GW would have a reason to shut him down.

I know that I sure appreciate their efforts and wish that I could actually do something for them as a "thank you", but our hands are tied.

So there you go troll. Stop posting if you don't have a clue (which you obviously don't have).

JokerGod wrote:

SO here is a brake down, LW got greedy and blamed it on GW,

then he took all the real data out of his program and sold it for 40$ saying "Here is what you need to run it and write it all your self, have fun"

then after he realized it was working he told every one "I would LIKE to pay you, but I can't because GW is greedy! how ever, even tho I aperantly have a crack legal team here, I chose to ignore that it is perfectly legal to give money to people as a gift and not for the work they do, because that would leave less money for me."

Every one is so fast to blame GW, I bet any money if some one wrote out a good program and pitched it to GW with out the greed of Lone Wolf they would go with it.

And lets face it kids, he is a greedy frak, 40$ for a program that is worthless unless you go out and get the data from volunteers, just imagine what his price was with the data in it.

Ghaz wrote:Once again, I see people trying to defend GW with baseless arguments. How do you know what GW offered? Are you psychic or were you actually there? Once again, instead of being a troll, how about actually reading the facts:

I'd worked on multiple projects with companies like Electronic Arts, so I was well-versed in what the industry standards were for both compensation and allocation of responsibilities when software products are developed by outside studios. Unfortunately, GW believed that the industry standards weren't appropriate and insisted on a structure that I considered to be less than equitable.

So GW wasn't willing to go with industry standards, but most likely wanted the program for little or nothing. So he should have game them the program out of the goodness of his heart? The same thing you're accusing the datafile authors of doing? Such hypocrisy on your part is astounding.

Ghaz wrote:

stonefox wrote:Yeah, well, it still doesn't change the reality of what he says. I guess LoneWolf's PR-rep is good enough that you'd hang on to that quote and dismiss anything else. All it takes is a few lines to tug the right heart strings and you'll have people exclaiming, "awwww, they really DO care for the people who make this do-nothing program profitable at all!"

More baseless accusations I see. Never once has anybody at Lone Wolf ever asked anybody to make datafiles for them for free. Get your facts straight before you start making such ignorant remarks.

Polonius wrote:@ Buzzsaw: You make some good points, but you fall into the same trap you accuse Ghaz of falling for. There seems to be no disagreement that there was at least a meeting between LW and GW, but we know that nothing came of it. That means that at least one party was unsatisfied with the offer. Knowing (with hindsight) that the product would sell perfectly well even if not lisenced, it tends to lend some credibility to the idea that LW's work is more valuable than what might at first be seen. Additionally, just because there is not reason to believe Rob's statements, there is no reason to think that he's lying. Believing them wholesale, as a neutral party, is a bit naive, but it's overly cynical to assume that he's lying, absent any other facts or history. Does that mean GW wanted the program for a pittance? Not necessarily, but it does seem likely that GW underestimated the products viability and the difficulty in creating and updating such a product (see the IAL fiasco), which would lead me to think that GW lowballed the offer. LW saw enormous growth (that materialized), and so maybe Rob wanted more than GW was willing to offer. All we know is that Rob was probably right to value his program highly.

Polonius wrote:As for taking advantage of the volunteers, I think you're overreaching a bit, as well as substituting your judgement for theirs. I can see that you wouldn't want to work on the datafiles, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't. Additionally, it's a fallacy to hold that the maintainers help LW but not the community. They help both, and as many people in the community like their work and AB, it's a net positive for the community.

Polonius wrote:I think that again, you seem to have a hostility towards LW (or the datafile maintainers) that seems to be coloring your posts more than any actual argument. Your post isn't hostile, but your argument seems to boil down to a simple dislike of LW's business model coupled with a complete inability to see the benefits of the AB interface on it's own merits.