AB40k Maintainers

As per the notes posted in various places, for example on the home page, new codexes will be released no sooner than 1 month after the official street date. The official street date of Codex Grey Knights is today, so that means the Grey Knights will not be in the AB40k files until the 2nd May at the earliest.

From the home page:

New Files. As mentioned in the FAQs in AB, on this site and in the relevant forums there is a minimum one month embargo on the latest release date on files when a new codex is released. Do not ask for it early!

We already have access to the codex - I myself am a GW independent trade account holder and have had a Black Box since last week. The delay on the files being updated is not a technical issue due to lack of codex access.

Providing us with the codex is not only against the forum rules, it's illegal. Offering to do so again will result in a ban. Please be patient.

I would like it if when selecting an Apoc style game the allies rule would not limit unit selections. for example If you start a Imperial Gaurd army, and want to add in some Eldar, not all the warmachine units are visible. this happens with almost every army list and with a variety of units.

Aleis wrote:I would like it if when selecting an Apoc style game the allies rule would not limit unit selections. for example If you start a Imperial Gaurd army, and want to add in some Eldar, not all the warmachine units are visible. this happens with almost every army list and with a variety of units.

For us to fix it you are gonna have to start somehwere with specifics. For example, When you are using an IG army, and select Eldar Allies, what specific units are not showing up?  

The work around is to build each races lists independantly of each other.  If you are a liscensed user of the AB files you are able to have multiple windows of AB open at the same time, so you can adjust one list to fit the other and so on.

The only thing I have to ask is to have a model-detail selection to respect 40k rules..

40k army building rules are model-based and not unit-based.
Example:
I select a 5 model csm terminator squad:
- terminator champion is selectable to assign it different wargear
- other 4 terminator are not singularly selectable:
if I give my terminator 3 power axe and 1 power sword and then I give 1 melta, I want to give it precisely to one model (giving it to a model with power axe or a model with power sword is different).

Army list must be precise and respect detail given by rules.

I think this can be done because, like I said, it is alredy done to specify champion.

Thank you for your work.
I really appreciate it
Giampaolo

Hiskrtapps wrote:The only thing I have to ask is to have a model-detail selection to respect 40k rules..

40k army building rules are model-based and not unit-based.
Example:
I select a 5 model csm terminator squad:
- terminator champion is selectable to assign it different wargear
- other 4 terminator are not singularly selectable:
if I give my terminator 3 power axe and 1 power sword and then I give 1 melta, I want to give it precisely to one model (giving it to a model with power axe or a model with power sword is different).

Army list must be precise and respect detail given by rules.

I think this can be done because, like I said, it is alredy done to specify champion.

Thank you for your work.
I really appreciate it
Giampaolo

This is really two opposing styles:

1) Every model is a "champion" which is what you describe. It takes up the maximum space on the printed roster.
2) Units are accurate which takes up the minimum space on the printed roster.

The last time we ran a poll like this it was 50/50 for each style. We can discuss what it would take internally to do this, but it would essentially mean producing two versions of the files.

I forgot to mention that the rules are WYSIWYG also, so an army list with the actual models is a bit misleading. The army list can describe cost and options that can be represented by nearly infinite combinations of models and conversions. Take a peak at army lists in White Dwarf, they are always by unit.

Homer

Homer_S wrote:

Hiskrtapps wrote:The only thing I have to ask is to have a model-detail selection to respect 40k rules..

40k army building rules are model-based and not unit-based.
Example:
I select a 5 model csm terminator squad:
- terminator champion is selectable to assign it different wargear
- other 4 terminator are not singularly selectable:
if I give my terminator 3 power axe and 1 power sword and then I give 1 melta, I want to give it precisely to one model (giving it to a model with power axe or a model with power sword is different).

Army list must be precise and respect detail given by rules.

I think this can be done because, like I said, it is alredy done to specify champion.

Thank you for your work.
I really appreciate it
Giampaolo

This is really two opposing styles:

1) Every model is a "champion" which is what you describe. It takes up the maximum space on the printed roster.
2) Units are accurate which takes up the minimum space on the printed roster.

The last time we ran a poll like this it was 50/50 for each style. We can discuss what it would take internally to do this, but it would essentially mean producing two versions of the files.

I forgot to mention that the rules are WYSIWYG also, so an army list with the actual models is a bit misleading. The army list can describe cost and options that can be represented by nearly infinite combinations of models and conversions. Take a peak at army lists in White Dwarf, they are always by unit.

Homer

I Homer,
thank you for your answer.

the two opposing style you describe, for me are:
1) It takes up the maximum space on the printed roster -> complete information
2) Minimum space on the printed roster -> uncomplete information

when you refers about "space on printed roasted" do you refer to output generated? (example pdf, html).
If so I think internal representation of the model (and editing) should be always complete (style 1) and then it should be selectable during exporting the type of report (style 1 or style 2) do you want to do.
If I have informations I can decide 1 or 2.
If I do not have informations I cannot decide. I am forced to 2.

The problem is that roaster can be used to share list information (I use it to share and discuss list idea with my brother) and every time we share list we have to add comment to specify information roaster is not providing.

At the end I don't know if I understood the meaning of you reference to WYSIWYG rule.. (maybe my english is not so good )
What do you want to say with "so an army list with the actual models is a bit misleading"?

The problem for me is that a roaster editor should be a tool to create roasters. I would prefer to focus on NATURE of the roaster (what a roaster is: a detailed list of models that compose units that compose an army) and not on PORPUSES I create it because they can be very different:
- to print my army list for a game/tournament
- to share my army idea with someone
- to send a detailed list to someone who can create (paint and assemble) for me army described in the roaster
- to create a software that can interpret army list for some purpose..
- maybe other...

If my tools cannot save all the information needed to describe the roaster it's not useful for some of these purposes.. and it's a pity because it shoud.
In White Dwarf short representation of list (by unit) is sufficient to achieve its goal. That's not enough in all situations..

I really want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about this argument, I think it's very important.
Giampaolo

Tourney style rosters, as output via "Competition Output", is exactly what tourney users requested. This gives the shortest legal description of the army when printed. They are always viewed with the WYSIWYG models, and define which model gets which upgrade. In my mind, the model with any particular upgrade is a game time decision. I can post another poll to see which way the users as a whole request.

Homer