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.
AoS is a different beast. The Warscrolls (Datasheets) are free. It's easy to make a useful army builder when the unit info is free. 40k Datasheets AREN'T free. I'm betting that the upcoming app will either be useless or it'll charge for access to the necessary info.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
deathwinguk wrote: I don't get it. Surely even with PL you need to record loadouts (unless you play strict WYSYWYG)? Adding up the PL isn't the difficult bit
I think I'll stick with BattleScribe...
WYSIWYG is pretty much the whole point of PL. You just use the models you have.
A lot of negativity here. I wonder how many people actually read the article.
The combat roster is only PL hence why it is so barebones.
They are also working on a full fledged app to use for points.
Why is combat roster out before the app? Because it was easier to make.
Dandelion wrote: A lot of negativity here. I wonder how many people actually read the article.
The combat roster is only PL hence why it is so barebones.
They are also working on a full fledged app to use for points.
Why is combat roster out before the app? Because it was easier to make.
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Spoiler:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Spoiler:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
From a miniatures company that has no background in the medium of apps and has to shop around for somebody to make it for them? Yah it's a little unreasonable to expect first time perfection on demand.
Corvus Belli requires an app to build army lists for their game and they still haven't got it down completely and their app has been out for like 2 years now.
Battlescribe has been out for a couple of years and it's still buggy as hell and it's made by dedicated fan boys who know what they are doing (mostly).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/04/30 22:51:10
Just buy Battlescribe and contract the volunteers to work part time on it. - or at least just buy the GW portions of Battlescribe.
Worse yet, all they had to do was literally just copy Battlescribe 1:1, tear out the unit stat lines, and make the minor changes when FAQs/ChapterApproveds come out.
You literally don't need to do anything other than copy a product that a) already exists, and b) is completely free and transparent.
I'm surprised by the negative feedback. It took a while to get used to, but I think it's a pretty good release.
You have to change your Faction or Index periodically to get access to different things to add to your army list (i.e. Ultramarines only gives named characters). NOTE: Changing the faction or index does not erase what you've added to the army list.
It would be nice to be able to create detachments, but I think this initial release is really meant for Open Play. After all GW still needs to sell rulebooks.
That is to say, Open Play, the game mode that explicitly tells you to skip making an army list and just put the models you want on the table anyhow. You don't need this tool to play that mode, heck it's kind of defeating the purpose.
Who is this supposed to be for? Narrative players still use detachments and this app doesn't support those.
This isn't much of a first step, it's at best a stumble.
I see what you're saying, but you're take on Open Play seems a little short sighted. Ever use the Open War cards? These are awesomely fun and technically Open Play. Everyone I know who utilizes Open Play or whom I've heard discuss having played Open Play on Podcasts or similar use Power Level to balance the game. Detachments are not always used, but PL is the quick, down and dirty, horseshoes & hand grenades - close as you can, method to balance the game.
Warhammer 40,000 does not need to be Matched Play by default. I honestly feel sorry for those people who are "all Matched Play all the time". They're missing out on so much, on so many things that make this game great.
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Spoiler:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
From a miniatures company that has no background in the medium of apps and has to shop around for somebody to make it for them? Yah it's a little unreasonable to expect first time perfection on demand.
A much less convincing argument in light of the fact they already have a functional, adequate version of this app for AoS, and hired the guy who made that to make this one for them.
Corvus Belli requires an app to build army lists for their game and they still haven't got it down completely and their app has been out for like 2 years now.
The existence of other poor products does not excuse the creation of new poor products. If you go to one supermarket and get a bout of the gaks from some free samples, it doesn't in any way lessen how much of a failure it is on their part if you go to a different supermarket chain and also get the gaks from their free samples as well.
Battlescribe has been out for a couple of years and it's still buggy as hell and it's made by dedicated fan boys who know what they are doing (mostly).
So you're saying a bunch of amateur fans working in their spare time for a few crumbs of ad money can put together an app with significantly more features and functionality(and the attendant bugs that arise from that extra complexity - though frankly I've heard very few complaints about Battlescribe in that regard so I don't know where you're getting "buggy as hell" from) than a corporation hiring an experienced dev, and somehow in this scenario that's supposed to make said corporation look better somehow?
Nobody's claiming releasing this shonky app makes GW war criminals or anything, but it's a pretty spectacularly pointless piece of guff and I have no idea why anyone feels the need to defend its honour.
I'm surprised by the negative feedback. It took a while to get used to, but I think it's a pretty good release.
You have to change your Faction or Index periodically to get access to different things to add to your army list (i.e. Ultramarines only gives named characters). NOTE: Changing the faction or index does not erase what you've added to the army list.
It would be nice to be able to create detachments, but I think this initial release is really meant for Open Play. After all GW still needs to sell rulebooks.
That is to say, Open Play, the game mode that explicitly tells you to skip making an army list and just put the models you want on the table anyhow. You don't need this tool to play that mode, heck it's kind of defeating the purpose.
Who is this supposed to be for? Narrative players still use detachments and this app doesn't support those.
This isn't much of a first step, it's at best a stumble.
I see what you're saying, but you're take on Open Play seems a little short sighted. Ever use the Open War cards? These are awesomely fun and technically Open Play. Everyone I know who utilizes Open Play or whom I've heard discuss having played Open Play on Podcasts or similar use Power Level to balance the game. Detachments are not always used, but PL is the quick, down and dirty, horseshoes & hand grenades - close as you can, method to balance the game.
Warhammer 40,000 does not need to be Matched Play by default. I honestly feel sorry for those people who are "all Matched Play all the time". They're missing out on so much, on so many things that make this game great.
I honestly feel more sorry for people who needed GW's permission to play in other ways. Scenarios, house rules, narrative-based army selection, all those other extras were around for pretty much forever and worked perfectly well with a single points-based system, but a big chunk of the "Open Play" crowd couldn't look past "but that's not officiaaaaal" and wouldn't have any part of it. Now GW say it's OK they're suddenly keen to be involved, but they'll only do it with silly unintentionally imbalanced Power Levels because now that's what's "official".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 00:40:46
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
To be fair I’m a bit disappointed not becuase it didn’t have points or every single weapon option permutation available, but this doesn’t even allow basic open play rules using detachments.
All I really wanted from this is to build legal detachments and complete army list using the index, codex, and forgeworld.
If I had this I could just make my list print it out and then just list the wargear by each unit and play narrative or open games using power level.
Bottom line is any list builder should be there to make sure your list is legal and allowed. This is far short of that even for open play.
Nice interface. Very easy to use for determining your Power Levels and mucking about.
Unfortunately, the lack of Detachments building tool and failure to put all units in the appropriate place is rather disappointing. Why the heck do Tactical Squads and Intercessor Squads only show up under Space Marines rather than all applicable armies?
Yodhrin wrote: A much less convincing argument in light of the fact they already have a functional, adequate version of this app for AoS, and hired the guy who made that to make this one for them.
The guy who made the Scrollbuilder signs his posts on the TGA forum as Tony. The guy who made the Combat Roster is called Tom.
Unless there is some serious name-mixing going on, it's not the same guy.
Also as Tony is fairly active on TGA, I would imagine that he would've mentioned it if he was making a GW-endorsed 40k version, which he hasn't.
Yup two totally different guys. The Aos one existed for years before it was integrated into the community site. The guy who made combat roster is on twitter so go and ask him some polite questions about it.
spiralingcadaver wrote: So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
Here is pretty good, short explanation of why exactly it's unreasonable:
Yodhrin wrote: So you're saying a bunch of amateur fans working in their spare time for a few crumbs of ad money can put together an app with significantly more features and functionality(and the attendant bugs that arise from that extra complexity - though frankly I've heard very few complaints about Battlescribe in that regard so I don't know where you're getting "buggy as hell" from) than a corporation hiring an experienced dev, and somehow in this scenario that's supposed to make said corporation look better somehow?
I take you never worked with corporate software and "just as good" fanmade stuff. Here is a thing - commercial versions usually need to be made right from the start. This mean keeping to standards, proper documentation, easy to read and modify code if you ever need to expand your software and don't have original dev on hand, etc, etc. All these things take time. What fans make (and in general all open source projects, save for biggest ones that have as much talent and resources thrown at them as their commercial rivals, and even that is not a given) is usually jumbled, patchy mess hacked together and called done as soon as it (barely) works. See battlescribe - shortcuts went so far the dev skipped a lot of easy stuff to do and instead dumped on users the need to install Java RTE (which I'd very much like not to install, as it potentially introduces a lot of problems into your PC) and told them to "deal with it". Proper, well made software would run without that lazy crutch from the start, thank you very much.
Grey Templar wrote: The Riptide can't be a giant death robot, its completely lacking a sword or massive chainsaw. All giant death robots have swords or massive chainsaws.
Simple enough to use, if not the most streamlined/rules friendly. (at least it seems to be listing optional equipment that changes a units PL - i.e. a Jump Pack)
Probably useful when you want to spend hours just playing around with what lists you can make from your collection, but beyond that, it’s just a minor time saving tool, when you’re going to need to open your Codices to play the game anyway.
Probably won't ever use it because PL isn't my thing and i'd probably be able to physically write the list out just as quick using a pen than that site.
spiralingcadaver wrote: So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
Here is pretty good, short explanation of why exactly it's unreasonable:
Yodhrin wrote: So you're saying a bunch of amateur fans working in their spare time for a few crumbs of ad money can put together an app with significantly more features and functionality(and the attendant bugs that arise from that extra complexity - though frankly I've heard very few complaints about Battlescribe in that regard so I don't know where you're getting "buggy as hell" from) than a corporation hiring an experienced dev, and somehow in this scenario that's supposed to make said corporation look better somehow?
I take you never worked with corporate software and "just as good" fanmade stuff. Here is a thing - commercial versions usually need to be made right from the start. This mean keeping to standards, proper documentation, easy to read and modify code if you ever need to expand your software and don't have original dev on hand, etc, etc. All these things take time. What fans make (and in general all open source projects, save for biggest ones that have as much talent and resources thrown at them as their commercial rivals, and even that is not a given) is usually jumbled, patchy mess hacked together and called done as soon as it (barely) works. See battlescribe - shortcuts went so far the dev skipped a lot of easy stuff to do and instead dumped on users the need to install Java RTE (which I'd very much like not to install, as it potentially introduces a lot of problems into your PC) and told them to "deal with it". Proper, well made software would run without that lazy crutch from the start, thank you very much.
So how many years do you think GW need to create an army builder app with the basic functionality of organising your selections into a detachment? I can understand what you're getting at but GW told us they were working on this in the build up to 8ths launch a year ago now. To this layman it feels like a very long time to not even properly cover the basics.
It's awful. Even if 90% of war gear does not affect PL, why not include it to help people know what they want to model?
It's really dumb that you have to switch between 'space marines' and whatever chapter you want to build a complete army. Why arent all codex units listed under Dark Angels?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/01 13:03:20
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
deathwinguk wrote: I don't get it. Surely even with PL you need to record loadouts (unless you play strict WYSYWYG)? Adding up the PL isn't the difficult bit
I think I'll stick with BattleScribe...
WYSIWYG is pretty much the whole point of PL. You just use the models you have.
People still convert, and there's still bits of wargear that aren't very obvious modelling wise.
A proper list of wargear is still an asset, especially with inexperienced gamers or for pickup games. It does render this rather a chocolate teapot.
SickSix wrote: It's awful. Even if 90% of war gear does not affect PL, why not include it to help people know what they want to model?
It's really dumb that you have to switch between 'space marines' and whatever chapter you want to build a complete army. Why arent all codex units listed under Dark Angels?
I don’t think the purpose of the platform is to design lists prior to buying and building, as I agree, it sucks for that.
I think the main purpose of the platform is simply to allow you to “quickly” and supposedly “easily” throw together a list from your existing collection. At which point, not having most of the weapon options isn’t going to be that big of a deal unless you aren’t going to be playing wysiwyg.
We use points and PL. Points for competitive players, and PL for PUGs. We have a 3v3 game at Nottingham coming up for 66 PL per player.
So, this app is nice for quickly swapping out parts of an army, and we worry about loadouts later.
What would have been nice (they might add it in, or not) is which detachments the list fits into, or is close to filling. The codexes don't have those in, and is all I use my BRB for when building lists.
Yodhrin wrote: A much less convincing argument in light of the fact they already have a functional, adequate version of this app for AoS, and hired the guy who made that to make this one for them.
The guy who made the Scrollbuilder signs his posts on the TGA forum as Tony. The guy who made the Combat Roster is called Tom.
Unless there is some serious name-mixing going on, it's not the same guy.
Also as Tony is fairly active on TGA, I would imagine that he would've mentioned it if he was making a GW-endorsed 40k version, which he hasn't.
Chikout wrote:Yup two totally different guys. The Aos one existed for years before it was integrated into the community site. The guy who made combat roster is on twitter so go and ask him some polite questions about it.
Warscroll Builder was developed by Tony Pacheco while Combat Roster (based on Rollcall) was developed by Tim Hewitt.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Spoiler:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
I'm an app developer. I see the same pattern in every app, webpage, desktop application I've been a part of. I saw the same thing with Warroom when it launched. People want all the features - day one and they want day one to be the same day they thought of the idea. It's unrealistic.
The app is being built according to the newer pattern - release with a small featureset, have the hundreds of users verify any bugs, then build features on as the app grows in a much more solid form than if the two guys working on it simple sat in an office for a year and did thier own QA.
Some thing to consider:
1)
GW didn't pay a million dollars for this app (a team of 9-10 working for a year).
GW didn't pay $500,000 for this app (2 developers, a couple QA guys and maybe a designer for a year)
GW likely only paid for 1-2 guys who have to do their own QA. (We don't know if Tim has a partner or not)
2) GW paid that amount (anywhere from $100,000-$250,000) for an app that could never make it's money back. People won't pay $10 for an app when battlescribe is free, much less than the amount needed to fund a big development team.
3) Holding the app off until it was 'perfect' is a terrible model. The longer the app stays unreleased the more ingrained the inevitable defects defects are. Warroom had this problem - they tried to launch with a medium featureset and there turned out to be architectural problems in the patch and data management that took years to fix. If Warroom had released earlier in its cycle, they could have fixed the problem upfront, before building layer after layer of features on top of it.
4) Battlescribe has 10 times the manpower and the ability for people to manually patch their data files to fix whatever the hell they want. Half of Dakka Dakka tells people not to use the app.
Every once in a while a thread about software/video game X pops up. Expect such threads to contain about a hundred rabid people demanding it be perfect and about a half dozen software developers banging their heads on their desks. And that one guy that took a class in HTML5 to insist that all software development is easy and then disappear when someone asks for his bitbucket/github profile link
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
It's the classic problem. Pretty much how every app/piece of software conversation ever goes:
Spoiler:
Audience: We want an app
GW: Cool, we got a guy started on it. We could have a fully functional version in a year.
Audience: No, we want it now
GW: Well, I suppose we could release an early version with barebones features...
Audience: Nope. All the features on launch.
GW: But...
Audience: Now
GW: ....
Audience: And 100% uptime with no defects or we will burn your social media to the ground.
So... you're berating the fanbase for wanting something; being impatient (I guess I'll buy that one, though the entire digital age has conditioned that); wanting functionality; wanting it to not be defective? What, exactly, is unreasonable about those standards...
I'm an app developer. I see the same pattern in every app, webpage, desktop application I've been a part of. I saw the same thing with Warroom when it launched. People want all the features - day one and they want day one to be the same day they thought of the idea. It's unrealistic.
The app is being built according to the newer pattern - release with a small featureset, have the hundreds of users verify any bugs, then build features on as the app grows in a much more solid form than if the two guys working on it simple sat in an office for a year and did thier own QA.
Some thing to consider:
1)
GW didn't pay a million dollars for this app (a team of 9-10 working for a year).
GW didn't pay $500,000 for this app (2 developers, a couple QA guys and maybe a designer for a year)
GW likely only paid for 1-2 guys who have to do their own QA. (We don't know if Tim has a partner or not)
2) GW paid that amount (anywhere from $100,000-$250,000) for an app that could never make it's money back. People won't pay $10 for an app when battlescribe is free, much less than the amount needed to fund a big development team.
3) Holding the app off until it was 'perfect' is a terrible model. The longer the app stays unreleased the more ingrained the inevitable defects defects are. Warroom had this problem - they tried to launch with a medium featureset and there turned out to be architectural problems in the patch and data management that took years to fix. If Warroom had released earlier in its cycle, they could have fixed the problem upfront, before building layer after layer of features on top of it.
4) Battlescribe has 10 times the manpower and the ability for people to manually patch their data files to fix whatever the hell they want. Half of Dakka Dakka tells people not to use the app.
Every once in a while a thread about software/video game X pops up. Expect such threads to contain about a hundred rabid people demanding it be perfect and about a half dozen software developers banging their heads on their desks. And that one guy that took a class in HTML5 to insist that all software development is easy and then disappear when someone asks for his bitbucket/github profile link
Yeah... so, I'm a project manager for a big bank and the majority of what I do at work is programming related. I agree with your above points, but I think it's fair to add that when I roll out a piece of software that covers few if any of the actual things the average end user wants to see... I expect (and usually receive) a negative reaction.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
The big issue with Battlescribe is that its not totally legit. It's actually pretty reliable and definitely gets the job done, but its clearly coded to appear generalized and not get swatted with IP infringement.
Where this hurts it is that its not really capable of being the optimal way to run 40k games. It can't be built to have a UI that flows the same way as 40k armies are built and its gameplay information is pretty limited to text files.
I think its a great stopgap and its been a long while since I've seen it be wrong in a way that I wouldn't suggest using it, but its at best a stopgap and far from a real digital solution to the game's need to adapt to the modern gaming landscape.
Yeah... so, I'm a project manager for a big bank and the majority of what I do at work is programming related. I agree with your above points, but I think it's fair to add that when I roll out a piece of software that covers few if any of the actual things the average end user wants to see... I expect (and usually receive) a negative reaction.
I would imagine your customer base has more realistic expectations for your software.
6000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 
4000 pts - 
1000 pts - 
1000 pts 
