AB40k Maintainers

Magpie wrote:Point is the RAW/RAI or whatever doesn't matter, what we are talking about is a desired functionality for our beloved Army Builder, that has some very compelling reasons for inclusion.

RAI seems to be the real culprit here. The double swap, IMHO, and many others, is not against RAW. But it seems to be the current RAI for the SM maintainer. We just need to continue driving the point home I guess.

I gave up, honestly, a few weeks back and just did a quick mod to the code to fix it. It isn't perfect or pretty, but it works. Problem is, it makes updates difficult, since I have to go in and change everything each time I apply a new update. As I learn more about the editor, perhaps I will find an easier/better way to do it.

The easiest solution would be to change it in the AB files for us. The change does not break the tool for anyone who has the narrower view of the rules, but it allows the rest of us to build out lists.

It can flag other stuff as needing our 'opponent's permission' why not this?

Yep I agree.
The only person who's interpretation of the rules is important is the guy you are about to play against.
AB40k should be all things to all men, as much as possible.

Magpie wrote:Yep I agree.
The only person who's interpretation of the rules is important is the guy you are about to play against.
AB40k should be all things to all men, as much as possible.

The issue with this logic though is if you are using AB, and they are using AB, then there shoudl be no question of the legitimacy of the rules you are playing. This has been the case in several occurances in the past where we have allowed a looser interpretation and had it literally been stated, well it must be legal since AB says you can do it. 

I am not saying it will be changed, or wont be changed, just giving a reason why the looser interpretation is sometimes a problem.

Honestly, with all the recent rules changes and for that matter your own thoughts of legality, if my opponent is ok that I run a Nid  troop squad with my SM army just because I want to without making the necessary allied detatchment requirements, then that should be allowed in AB also, since my opponent would have to approve of it anyway right?

I point this as an obvious 'NO' since we all know and agree that would be breaking the rules.  ;)

I don't think anyone is arguing that there should not be a line drawn in the sand. That is obvious, and we all see the dilemma volunteer contributors like those at AB40K face in walking that line properly. Clearly, the more "strict" you are with the interpretation, the easier it is to prevent experiences like the ones you identify.

That said, this issue is not a friendly exception to a rule like allowing a nid ally for a friendly game. This is clearly a difference in interpretation of the RAW. What has a lot of posters frustrated is that every other piece of evidence out there points to our "looser" interpretation. We have the online army manager as part of GW's iPad Codex: SM that follows our interpretation. We have a battle report in White Dwarf, moderated by the author of Codex: SM, that uses a Sgt with a power fist and a combi-grav. We have numerous images from the codex clearly showing multiple load out selections.

Yet, despite all that, there are excuses as to why those are not valid examples. The iPad codex "is just an army manager to house what you collected." "Battle reports always have issues so we can't trust those." "Visual images are taken by a photographer for visual appeal not rule compatibility." Seriously, all excuses. More importantly, and linking this back to the OP, GW FAQ'd the biker squad with similar wording to allow bikers to take special weapons. How are these examples not enough to get past this RAW debate?

We appreciate your candid posts on this thread, but we are looking for a valid response to this issue. The excuses are tiring. And short of modifying the code, which myself, and I'm sure several others have done, AB becomes a headache instead of a support mechanism for the many of us with the "double swap" interpretation.

What is the right mechanism to get this issue addressed with the maintainers so that we can move past it? The bug requests have not worked, and the threads people keep opening have not worked. We simply want a resolution that allows us to continue using a tool we love to use for the army we love to play.

Jlong, thanks again for at least listening to us.

Amen Fenrick!

But on an aside, for those who have modified AB to fix this...how is it done? Can you post the steps we have to do as I haven't been able to figure it out...

Yes please. I would like to use the program to make a <questionably> legal list where my Sergeants have Power Weapons and Bolt Pistols.

Thread locked. This has been discussed at length. We have given our reasons. Until the SM maintainer decides otherwise it will remain. Please do not create a new thread, it will be nuked without prejudice.