Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've got Armybuilder, and until just recently I've been a big fan of what the developers at AB40k.org have been doing.

But about a week ago they started making absolute BS rulings that aren't supported by the codex. When their mistake is pointed out they start stonewalling and demanding an FAQ ruling on it before they fix the problem with their program, threatening to remove posting privileges from anyone who tries to argue it further.

Neither one of these rulings has any impact on any of my lists, but their attitude and pigheaded refusal to listen to reason has really soured my opinion of them.

So does anyone know of any *other* 40k plugins for Army Builder besides theirs?
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
963 Posts
I found the posting you are refering to about BA and the Land Speeder ordeal. First I would like to point out that Harkan did say that if anyone had an issue with the ruling they should PM him and not post it to the bug report. As there had been a flame war going on previously they did not want any more post prior to recieving clarification. Second I would like to say that you posted in a very nasty manner that was not very conducive to remedying the issue. This is one ruling and they do leave room to change their minds just not untill after another FAQ comes out. If need by I believe I may be able to make a modified 40K file that would allow you to have Blood Angel Landspeeders with the changes you requested but it may be overwritten by future downloads of AB40K files.

I will PM Harkan to discuss this issue with him and see if we might be able to come to a satisfactory comprimise but for the record I'm with them on the intention of the developers to not have both Typhoon Missle launcher and Assualt Cannon on the same Land Speeder.
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
It'a nothing insanely major, but their steaadfast refusal to even listen to counter-arguements has pissed me off.

The core of it is in the Blood Angels Land Speeder entry.

The program currently refuses to allow Typoon Missile Launchers to be added to a speeder equipped with a Heavy Flamer or Assault Cannon.

However, the wording in the codex is pretty damned clear that they are 'added' with no references made whatsoever to limitations or interactions with other weapons. When the official FAQ failed to address it, I assumed this was clear enough and meant to be.

But they refused to allow it because they say you can;t prove that the line saying that it may add a typhoon missile launcher is in addition to other weapons, and they cite references to other, older cidices which are, frankly, irrelevant to the newer BA codex.

So they;ve flagged it as ;issue closed, pending FAQ' which emans 'never' since GW is stingy with FAQs, especially if a dex just had one.

Someone else then pointed out that if they;re going to be that way then they should remove the option to issue special weapons to honour guard characters since the wording is similar.

So they did.

Basically they've decided to nerf the BA codex for no other reason than they don't want to be proven wrong

Now, myself, I don't use speeders anymore, and I rarely pay for character upgrades for my honour guards, so it doesn't impact the lists I make, but it just strikes me as petty and arbitrary, and they steadfastly refuse to hear what anyone has to say about it.

So I'm pissed at them and looking for an alternative.
And i don't know enough about programming to change it myself

I think I'm mostly pissed because it's such a shock. These same guys ruled to allow Bike+Servo Harness for codex tech marines because they;re not in the business of making up rules and that the program should reflect what the RAW allows, even if it seems illogical. Meanwhile they just up and decide that the word 'add' is too fucking vague to mean 'in addition to whatever the fuck else it has' and start making up their own ruling on it rather than leaving it available until ruled otherwise.
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
963 Posts
Again I understand your issue and I have read the codex and both sides of the arguement. I have PMed Harkan with my request and hope to open a dialog with him concerning this issue. I worked with them previously to help get Deamonhunters fully functional back in the days of 2.1 and 2.2 so I may be able to help. This is a time for you to listen to your own signature and try to resolve this cooly.

I dont believe they will listen to the arguement that this is "RAW" to allow it as they clearly see that the option is there but they are going with the more traditional "RAI" in that they believe that the developers did not intend to allow this LS build. As I said before I personally believe that that is the developers intetion as well but I am trying to work on a comprimise with them.

If need be I can possibly change the datafile to give the requested functionality but Im not sure as I havent even looked at the datafile yet to see how it was built. I have changed datafiles in the past but havent really worked with it since 2.2 days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
What's the harm in allowing the option? The people that think you can't take the option won't take it, while those that think you can and want to will.

Leaving the option open doesn't force anything on anybody. Closing it off does.

If they're that concerned about it, they could just add a note to the the verification or add a check-box like when using a Repressor in a my Sisters army (in my AB2.2 anyway).
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
That's what I'm saying.

They've always sided with allowing it unless the rules were expressly clear. Now all the sudden they're making up personal rulings and trying to pull intent into it. It's very unlike them.

As I said, they actually altered the program to allow bike+servo harness, despite evidence of 'intent' against it, in the form of unofficial FAQs from the old board. But they said flat out that it wasn;t their place to make rulings when the RAW isn;t clear.

This reversal is a shock, especially when all they had to do was just add the option and leave it up to the player to decide. Then their steadfast refusal to discuss it after the decision was made.

Just not a good attitude ot have
 

·
Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
What you don't know Gal is that the programmers and the beta testers went through all this, ad naseum, already. Over and over again with people arguing both sides. So it was decided to leave the file as it is until there is an official FAQ printed on the GW site about it. It isn't that they refuse to listen to reason or are disregarding you at all. It is just an arguement that has gone on for far too long with no solution (and that they get pm'd about continually) and they are sick of hearing about it, nothing personal.

And the reason why we don't leave rules in for those who want them is that AB is supposed to be designed to make a fully legal list only and any ruling that may be abused by clever reading, different opinions, etc, is not included.


And please Gal, don't try to argue it with me here. I don't know nor do I care as I am just the beta tester for the chaos and tau files mainly. I do know that there was a massive thread in the maintainers section about it and the gist of the thread but that is it.:grin:
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
963 Posts
Ok.. I've recieved a reply from Harkan on this matter and as Wraithlord said above it will be left as is untill they can recieve anything clear cut.

Now to post a counter arguement to your arguement...

If you went as per your wording on the BA Landspeeder and applied it to other Codex which read the same then Space Marine Tactical Squads could have a single model with both flamer/meltagun/plasmagun AND Heavy Bolter/Missle Launcher/Plasma Cannon/Las Cannon/Multi Melta.

Both wargear descriptions read the same... 1 Marine/Speeder may have such and such weapon. 1 Marine/Speeder may have this such and such weapon. In neither description is it either/or. So by your arguement for the Landspeeders equipped with both weapons I can do the same with my Space Marines and technically have a Bolter/Meltagun/Heavy Bolter equipped Space Marine?
 

·
Executive Nitpicker
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Except the word they use for the typhoon launcher is "ADD"

As in "In addition to"

It is *given* an assault cannon, and then it has a typhoon launcher *added*

how is that somehow vague and mysterious?
 

·
Inquisitor
Joined
·
963 Posts
The reason for the word of ADD is because the vehicle already has one weapon and they are adding a second weapon. Your describing a vehicle with 3 weapons and only 2 passengers.. whose firing the 3rd weapon?? Heavy Bolter *check*, Assualt Cannon *check*, Missle Launcher ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,636 Posts
I dunno. It's ambiguous. I think you can ADD either an Assault Cannon or Typhoon Launcher.

I think adding them both is a bit munchie. That's just me.

The way I see it...there is a Land Speeder, Land Speeder Tornado, and Land Speeder Typhoon. That's it.

No such thing as a Land Speeder Typhoonado or anything.
;)

RAW is for the rules lawyers and cheesers to fight over.
:laugh:
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top