by I'm confused.
Who thinks the BA isn't an official canon source from GW?
Come on guys--really? It isn't a 'Codex' because it's a web PDF?
I don't even understand what the difference is between 'Non-Codex Source' and 'Non-Codex Materials'.
Also, if I click off 'Include Validation Report' and 'Include Design Information', the only hint my list might be illegal is the little red icon at the top.
Pretty much giving the masses the ability to cheat using Army Builder rosters.
Help me understand the thinking behind this--cheating is acceptable so long as a few people can add their own pet projects to the data files?
I'm still confused why this is good for the hobby.
Please, I know a few people can figure out how to do it anyway--the point is it's a pain in the ass, judging by the sheer swarms of volunteers for duty here.
Giving this isn't a gift to the 'community', it's a curse.
Standards matter.
|
Non Codex Q's
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
#2 I'm slow... did the BA codex get listed in the datafile as non-official in some way?
I think the purpose of "Codex v. everything else" is Codex is GW material which can be bought off the shelf, via Direct or is downloadable. This would include errata/FAQs from GW. Everything else is GW material that is either Forgeworld or other non-Codex. The old Harlequins list or Chapter Approved items would fall into that category. It looks like GW is swinging back towards this as a means to give updates between printed books, look at Apoc Datasheets and the BA codex as examples. On the other item, if a player is going to cheat, they can just type the list up and dummy it to look like AB output. In order to help with that, it is incumbent upon users to do a quick sanity check on the output. If I was running a tourney, I would accept AB lists provided that they showed the validation check and were made with the most recent datafile. If it was missing, I would ask the player to resubmit the list. It a player did this in a pickup game, I would probably not want to play that person again. As an example, I took my laptop with AB to a tourney I was helping run and punched everyone's lists into it. I caught some errors that players honestly missed and they were corrected. I double checked all errors so noted w/the rulebook and or army book before notifying the players. YMMV Some of these integrity type checks that you seem to want would need to come from the AB code itself, not the datafiles. We can only use the tools we are given. Shaggai, Feel free to correct or clarify anything I said. Homer The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
#3 Yes, the BA codex is listed as a 'Non-Codex Source'.
GW is swinging back to what, exactly? Apocalypse Datasheets are used by the majority of 40K players since when? How is GW putting out Apoc Sheets every few months an indication of a new policy--and how is it relevant to this conversation? I'd really like to see someone type up the AB format and print out a roster. Falls into the 'serious pain in the ass' category, which isn't what I'm asking about--this 'new' system isn't a pain in the ass. It's easy to use, anybody can do it. They can also turn off the 'warnings'. I swear I'll just go in circles saying the same thing over and over, so I'll just shut up now.
#4
No need to shut up... I like to discuss things like this. As long as everyone remains civil. I think the BA codex should note its source, perhaps with a date. I would not class it as "Non-Codex", maybe that is a bug for the bug tracker? You asked what the difference between Codex and Non-Codex was and I was presenting my understanding. It was my understanding that GW at some time in the past published new rules via White Dwarf and/or Chapter Approved. At some point, either directly or indirectly, they reversed themselves and stopped doing that. They then published the BA codex in WD as a two-parter. That seems like a swing back to using WD or other means to distribute rules outside of a published Codex or Errata/FAQ. AB has a validation report and we try to flag situations where the datafiles allow a set of options that are not valid. I do not think that we can restrict the ability to turn this report off within the datafiles, that is a matter for Lone Wolf. Homer The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
#5 Actually it was more of a test to see if the old Core/expansion was needed. A better way to keep it in the file was to do something else with it and thus the concept of codex and non-codex source. However, looking at it again, with the idea of ruleset for non-codex materials it may be finally a way to remove the core/expansion codex/non-codex source entirely. That means while eveything would be considered a base list (since there would be no choice there), IA lists would be non-codex materials as well as WH Zealots and things of that ilk, including the GW website/WD apocalypse formations.
As to being able to not print validation warnings and other options, that falls squarely on LW. I can say as far as I know, no one asked for this - and I don't necessaily think its a good idea. I can see it however as (rightly or wrongly) a way to get Tournament Organizers to use AB lists and have the entrants hand in thier rosters electronically and have them pass the scrutiny of the TO's copy of AB in case some one tried shenanigans like that. Lacking that, I can imagine that it could lead to shady things like a three or four lash whip army... Age of Cash-mar - alienate you fan base and find a new way to squeeze money out of those poor souls!
#6 I agree.. all the griping about the AB files not matching someones view of what should/shouldn't be legal is silly. Code to the rules listed. We all know that NOTHING stops users from editing the datafiles themselves thereby allowing something we all code as non-legal.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
6 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Questions, Comments and Suggestions Who is onlineRegistered users: No registered users |
