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.

--ninja'd---
Sad to see AB40k Maintainers go. I use Army Builder every single day because of them. I'm hoping whatever team picks up the pieces does at least half as good of a job.

I imagine someone somewhere will pick it up.

I can't imagine too many future sales or license renewals for AB without 40K and WFB support...

Version 1.03 is now available through AB. The Allied FOC issue where it would fail validation if you had a 3rd HQ or 4th Elite, for example, has been fixed.

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/ymbo05yv0091b3n/AB40K6v1_03.ab?dl=1

updating OP.

Am I missing how to double FoC for 2,000+ games, or has it not been implemented?

Edit. Yeah, was just me missing it...

Just wanted to post briefly, and mention that the files are being updated albeit slower than what we would like. Unfortunately that's to be expected as there are so many spare hours in the day and only so many of them can be spend working in the files before you just get plain exhausted.

The files mainly have to be modified in three distinct ways: 1) is the main complaince with the 6E FAQs (such as the usual errata, corrections, or interpretation issues that sometime get closed)., 2) Updates to make the system work under 6E rules (such as specifc bonuses based on type of power and force weapon, frag grenades being bundled up into assault grenades, allies, etc.), and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references).

As you can imagine the amount of changes needed can stretch from a single unit getting one line of code rearraged to the complete addition or modification of a basic "component" of the system (such as the allies and new FoC).

We are also working on issues that appear on our bug tracker, and honestly a lot of those reports touch on items that we are working on and correcting at the same time as the reports come in. Other times correcting the issue requires a immense change or addition and isn't a quick fix fix so hold patience from reporting an issue may not have gotten fixed after a few days or a couple of weeks...

That's all for now.

shaggai wrote:
Just wanted to post briefly, and mention that the files are being updated albeit slower than what we would like. Unfortunately that's to be expected as there are so many spare hours in the day and only so many of them can be spend working in the files before you just get plain exhausted.

The files mainly have to be modified in three distinct ways: 1) is the main complaince with the 6E FAQs (such as the usual errata, corrections, or interpretation issues that sometime get closed)., 2) Updates to make the system work under 6E rules (such as specifc bonuses based on type of power and force weapon, frag grenades being bundled up into assault grenades, allies, etc.), and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references).

As you can imagine the amount of changes needed can stretch from a single unit getting one line of code rearraged to the complete addition or modification of a basic "component" of the system (such as the allies and new FoC).

We are also working on issues that appear on our bug tracker, and honestly a lot of those reports touch on items that we are working on and correcting at the same time as the reports come in. Other times correcting the issue requires a immense change or addition and isn't a quick fix fix so hold patience from reporting an issue may not have gotten fixed after a few days or a couple of weeks...

That's all for now.

Keep up the good work! I know I appreciate it!

any idea when the White Dwarf Daemon updates will make it in?

and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references)

So weapon descriptions will no longer be in the list summary?

Half the reason for using AB is to avoid having to flip pages 50% of the time you are playing. Having those references included in the list makes things significantly easier.

This is different than the 5th edition files iirc, and is indicative of legal intervention from GW. Honestly, they need to just license it already. This is getting ridiculous, to the point where they'll throw a fit about stat lines being printed as well. It's a slippery slope here as GW tightens the leash.

There are workarounds of course, people printing up reference sheets that include the USR's and weapon rules relevant to the list they are using. That of course is a decent bit of work.

The less information that AB can present, the less useful it becomes, which is something I don't want to see happen.

 Aerethan wrote:

and lastly 3) something which for a lack of better terms we will simply call compliance (removing info of weapons, USRs and the like and replacing them with page references)

So weapon descriptions will no longer be in the list summary?

Half the reason for using AB is to avoid having to flip pages 50% of the time you are playing. Having those references included in the list makes things significantly easier.

This is different than the 5th edition files iirc, and is indicative of legal intervention from GW. Honestly, they need to just license it already. This is getting ridiculous, to the point where they'll throw a fit about stat lines being printed as well. It's a slippery slope here as GW tightens the leash.

There are workarounds of course, people printing up reference sheets that include the USR's and weapon rules relevant to the list they are using. That of course is a decent bit of work.

The less information that AB can present, the less useful it becomes, which is something I don't want to see happen.

You can always update this bit yourself, and to be honest it's quite easy to do so.

Huh. Interesting. I wonder if it's the list-building that was the issue, or the stat blocks and weapon descriptions that they decided to remove that were.

 daedalus wrote:
Huh. Interesting. I wonder if it's the list-building that was the issue, or the stat blocks and weapon descriptions that they decided to remove that were.

My guess would be the USR's and specifics involving codex wide rules that make it easier to bypass needing the rule books (not that I think you could play without them just by using Army Builder).

Stat lines and rules themselves are not copyrightable. The only thing that is "owned" in a game system are the mechanics of the game itself, which can be patented.

An example of the game mechanics are the To Hit and To Wound tables. Without those two things, the game doesn't function. Those two tables are a core mechanic of the game. Stat lines are arbitrary numbers in the manner presented in AB files. They are simply references for use in the tables. Item costs, stat lines, unit or weapon descriptions etc. All are not protected information.

USRs are all in the BRB. So are the two tables that comprise the crux of the game. You can't play the game without those tables. You need the BRB to use those tables. So from an ownership standpoint, you could argue that the lists are worthless without the BRB. Since you own the BRB for those tables, you also own a copy of the USR's being omitted here.

So if you MUST own the BRB to play the game, then making reference sheets of that book which you legally own should fall under fair use. If I can make backups of CD's or mixed CD's, I should be able to make mixed reference sheets of the rules that I legally own a copy of.

USR's are not protected by the games patents, nor are they copyrighted.

GW would claim ownership of the dice rolling mechanic if they thought they'd get away with it.

Now, ultimately the changes made are done at the discretion of those who make them. As pointed out, I could very well make my own. It just seems like the AB40k team is spending time doing these "compliance" changes that aren't actually needed.

Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.

Curious wrote:
Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.

This sums it up for me. It does suck to not have it on a handy print out, but the organization of the army and having the stats handy is what I use it. Hell, half of the time, I look up the USR in the book just to make sure I'm getting things right as I learn it.

As Krisken said, I'll go in and update what I need myself or make an easy reference sheet or two.

Curious wrote:
Honestly, I'll take the inconvenience of these "compliance" changes if it means that the files continue being updated. Army Builder is an incredibly valuable tool for me and I'm just happy to see that it's sticking around.

Ditto - and it's not that hard to get a copy of the army summary (from the back of the codex / GW site) that has all the stats on it.

The issue isn't stats. Those aren't protected information. They are arbitrary numbers when presented by themselves.

The issue is with having to STILL flip pages throughout a game to look up a rule, instead of having that rule already presented on your army list.

Army Builder has 2 things going for it:
1. Simplified list building. For that, you don't need stats or USR's. Just unit costs and options. AB does this wonderfully.
2. A printed out reference sheet specific to the army list you designed. The whole point of that is convenience. Anyone could print out an army list in a matter of minutes. But how many people hand write out the stats and rules for their army list.

Convenience is the entire point of the software. The less convenience it offers, the less people see a need for it.

If having the USR for your list in one handy spot then just type them up in word and print them out.

Army Builder is a list builder, not a cheat sheet.

 d-usa wrote:
If having the USR for your list in one handy spot then just type them up in word and print them out.

Army Builder is a list builder, not a cheat sheet.

1. I'm not saying it needs to be a cheat sheet, but the convenience it ONCE offered is being taken away.
2. Not every list uses every USR. It would be a decent amount of extra work to write up a new cheat sheet of USR's for every army list I designed. Sure, I could do it, but it is one of those things that I paid AB to do for me(I understand that AB itself doesn't deliver the content, but the files at the time included the rule descriptions, and as such were a feature that was used in my decision to buy the software).

um..unless I'm missing something, the whole "reference back to the rulebook/codex" thing isn't new, the 2.2 files had that put in for exactly the same reason. It appears that the maintainers lapsed back into bad habits by copying out the rules in full and are just returning to the status quo

I think this is interesting in that many people had begun to slam AB because of having too much information on the lists. AB reacted by implementing a tournament format that did away with all the stats and just had units and costs, spelling out the upgrades.

In my own lists I stopped including all the extra rules information and tried to keep my lists to a single page of units, stats, equipment and costs. When I go to a tourney I print out the list in that basic format and the bare bones tournament format and let my opponent choose which one he wants to see.

So it appears that Army Builder will continue to support 40K without the specific rules? My license just expired last week and this is the decider as to whether or not I renew.

I only care about using it to print a nice easy list of the stats and verify my point costs. I have no problem using a cheat sheet for the other stuff.

Thanks army builder, glad you are sticking around. GW has got to be the biggest pain in the butt to work with. Your product has made it easy to see all kinds of builds. My FLGS tourneys have been greatly improved with printed AB lists, cuts down on cheating. Thanks again.

With the files only be available through AB's update mechanic .... are we sure that GW's responsible and not Lone Wolf?

Seems to me Lone Wolf has the most to gain from the current predicament of the AB40k.

Useful Program none the less.

 Meep357 wrote:
With the files only be available through AB's update mechanic .... are we sure that GW's responsible and not Lone Wolf?

Seems to me Lone Wolf has the most to gain from the current predicament of the AB40k.

Lone Wolf is not responsible for the availability of the file in any way. I've linked it directly in the thread.

The only change in the files availability is that it is no longer downloadable from the AB40k site.

It is available from auto update, as well as the files page of the AB site, as well as here.

So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.

What am I missing?

 Moopy wrote:
So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.

What am I missing?

For the answer to that, I'd wait until AB40K makes that announcement they mentioned in the other thread. They said they would explain what they could about it all some time next week.

 Moopy wrote:
So, now that GW's rampaged over the updater's website, why are they even bothering with "compliance" issues? I'd think now that they have to go underground, there's no reason to have to deal with those issues.

What am I missing?

Intentionally doing something wrong or stupid (such as poking sleeping bears) isn't always the best solution.

That bear isn't sleeping, it's looking in the kitchen window. If GW's going to attack people who make a product that helps play 40k, and has gone out of the way to make sure it doesn't compete/eclipse GW's products, I'm not pleased. When their actions devalue the product that I paid for, after years of being a-ok with what's going on, I move to pissed.

If AB is forced underground to keep going, then there's very little incentive to comply with any previous agreement, including waiting 1 month after a new codex is released.

Damn if this is isn't a stupid turn of events.