AB40k Maintainers

OK,

I used to enjoy maintaining these data files. I have been doing this since 2006, nearly 10 years. I used to enjoy discussing rules and their various interactions and how best to represent that in the Army Builder fileset. It is discussions like this which make me want to revisit that feeling. If an entire thesaurus has to be brought to bear on someone's reading of a rule, I begin to wonder if the game designers have just given up on writing rules which do not require a law degree, from a British university, to decipher clearly. Apparently a Ph.D. is no longer sufficient.

I’m going to ignore Army Builder until the 30 day window pertaining to Codex: Craftworlds is up. If you see a datafile at that point, I’m back. If not, consider this my 30 day notice.

Homer

Don't let one person ruin what you enjoy doing, hundreds if not thousands of people use army builder only because there's people like you behind it. If a couple people can't have a proper conversation when debating a rule and still can't see reason even when you provide all the evidence they really should need then it's not your fault. Just ignore people like that, as I said before hundreds if not thousands of people are thankful for what you and the other maintainers do. Most don't show it, most don't even know that you don't get paid for doing this (and I strongly disagree with this, you SHOULD get something, but's that's another topic) but all are glad that they're able to use the best army builder resource there is.

Recently I had a problem where army builder crashed when building large rosters, you commented and opened a thread on wolflair's site for me. Spack kept trying to help me through private messages. In the end we couldn't find what the problem was but after trying out other army builders because I couldn't use this one I really appreciated (even more than I already did) how much work you put in this compared to the other programs. So much that I bought a new laptop just to use this army builder.

Loads of people would lose a lot if you left as I have no doubt that unless the other maintainers took on your work (and I know they already do a lot) there's nobody else to take over that has as much experience as you have.

I've reported many little bugs myself, if it wasn't fixed right away (rarely) then there was a reason why it wasn't, maybe a new codex was being worked on, or maybe you went on a holiday, but I knew that it would be fixed as soon as you could and for that we should be thankful because again, you're doing this for free, nobody should expect that they're owed something from you.

I am with Engrimm, I have told many people how great this product is based on how much effort you and your team put into it. I hope for the continuation of your great work. I know the new release schedule must be really tough on all the maintainers. It is rough when someone treats you so poorly for all the great work that you do, please take a break and relax I hope to see you back on the team.

You can reference my thread if you like but the point still stands, if you will do this then do it fairly. The orks seem to have drawn the short end of the stick for no reason.

It is widely accepted as fact by the majority of the player base and tournaments that the supplement does not restrict the relics. It has been the same for each and every supplement ever since their conception. Army Builder has allowed multiple items to be equipped, but Orks get an unfair restriction in AB.

There ARE indisputable gray areas in a lot of the rules. I don't deny that. In fact i think the whole 'swap my bolter for a chainsword and then swap that for a special weapon" was a great example of gray areas that are up in the air for interpretation and the community was a lot more divided on which of these is correct.

However the Ork Supplement restriction in AB is entirely set by whoever was in control of making these datafiles and the great majority disagrees with you, the precedent disagrees with you, the supplement itself disagrees with you (it has NO restrictions listed just like all other supplements before and after it). I just want it to be fair across the board.

To dispute that instead and replace aren't interchangeable is petty. The dictionary disagrees with you.

I love army builder, I love the work you guys do, I do my part in posting these bug reports. But when you force down your interpretation where it contradicts the understanding of the great majority of players in something that even you point out "its a gray area" and we have NO CHOICE but to follow what YOU think is correct. That's where I call FOUL. believe me the charity work you do is greatly appreciated, but even then you should aim to serve those you wish to help to the best and not to purposely handicap us specially on a gray area.

Example; If you served food at a food kitchen, to feed the poor/homeless/etc would you willingly deny them drinks? Just because you think that's not the flavor they will like? No coca-cola for anyone! Sprite only!

I honestly believed these Ork issues were a bug, so i came and reported it. Then i saw that someone had already reported it MONTHS ago, so i thought it stranger that it was never addressed, in fact he didn't even get a response. So i added a comment to it, and then made a thread to ask why? It boggled my mind. I don't think i am being unreasonable in asking that we follow the established precedent until there's further wording in any supplement that specifically restricts, or FAQ that restrict the combined use of relics in supplements. Let players themselves decide upon which side of the gray area spectrum they wish to fall under. Having to make sure my lists are a certain points under and then adding notes on which items im supposed to be equipped with, has becomed tedious.

Homer_S wrote:I’m going to ignore Army Builder until the 30 day window pertaining to Codex: Craftworlds is up. If you see a datafile at that point, I’m back. If not, consider this my 30 day notice.

NOOOOO! Don't let an interpretation argument get you down! There always seems to be a little tension between the Devs and the Users: Usually goes something like this:

Users: We want everything in the world, and want it now, new codex is available for pre-order, why is it not yet in AB! I read a rule to mean this, so change it so I can "officially" do it within AB, so my friends/LGS buddies don't complain.
Devs: Patience, we are only a small group of 2.35 people who volunteer our time to maintain this, stop asking, and wait it will come. It is the way it is within AB because that is how it is, and thats that.
Users: Well you suck, I don't want to wait, I want it all now, how come you managed to get "such-and-such" codex out fast, and the one I need is taking forever?!? Oh and I'm still waiting on you agreeing with my interpretation.
Devs: did you forget the 30-day window for new codexes?!? I think you did, oh an about that interpretation, well the problem is just what it is, how you interpret something. Please show me the exact page number and rule book/codex that supports what you say.
Users: GAH I don't want to wait! And I don't need to give you page numbers when it is so obvious and black and white since that is how "I" always played, that everyone must as well. And since my group will treat an AB roster as "law" I NEEEED to get it in there!!!
Devs: (usually at this point, is where there is a lack of further response or other users hopping on team-dev or team-user)

So first, I hope my little story cheered you up somewhat, and perhaps even let you know that even though us users want it all, there are still those of use who appreciate what you do for us, and respect all the time and effort that goes into maintaining these files. When someone complains about the way things are done, well, nobody is requiring them to use these files or Army Builder in the first place... They can always use creative workarounds (as I have done prior to a bug being fixed) or alternatives such as BattleScribe, or "perish the thought" actual pencil and paper, and create an army list the old fashioned way.

So i hope you continue doing what you do, because you know your stuff and do it well!

Akaiyou wrote:But when you force down your interpretation where it contradicts the understanding of the great majority of players in something that even you point out "its a gray area" and we have NO CHOICE but to follow what YOU think is correct. That's where I call FOUL. believe me the charity work you do is greatly appreciated, but even then you should aim to serve those you wish to help to the best and not to purposely handicap us specially on a gray area.

Example; If you served food at a food kitchen, to feed the poor/homeless/etc would you willingly deny them drinks? Just because you think that's not the flavor they will like? No coca-cola for anyone! Sprite only!

I have no idea about your argument either way, I don't play Orks, nor does anyone I know. However your example is a bit flawed... You do have a choice, your choice is to use AB, or you could choose to use BattleScribe, or choose to use pencil and paper... In your food kitchen example, if you were the homeless guy visiting the "AB food kitchen", and wanted coca-cola, and they didn't serve it, you could either deal with sprite, or choose to go somewhere else that did.

AB is just a tool to help organize and create an army list based on the GW books... If GW makes a change to a rule, then yes you have no choice but to follow the new rule (unless you play older editions with your buddies). But if AB doesn't conform to your needs, you do have a choice to not use it and use another tool that serves your purpose better.

I'm always running into issues with the chaos files, some of which I report, some of which I make a work around and deal with until I get frustrated enough to then report it, all of which I research to find book/page number to support my claim if needed, as well to aid the devs verifying and correcting the error. With all my headaches I've had over the years, I still embrace AB, and the files the devs here maintain because even with all the issues, it is a far superior "product" then anything else out there I tried. I used it 10 years ago in 3rd edition, and still using it today for 7th edition.

So like I said, I don't know who is right or wrong with your Ork issue, and I don't even care.... Just wanted to point out your argument is flawed... Yes once you choose AB, you are forced to use it how they have it setup. But if you don't like that, you are free to choose any other tool of your liking.

Who am I kidding... I'm addicted to editing these damn files. Just be civil. Post bugs and if you disagree with an interpretion: discuss them with supporting, published (printed or electronic), references. If you have to resort to "everyone I know plays it that way" or "Smolly from GW sent me an email" then you have failed to persuade anyone but yourself.

Homer

Soooo since you're staying, why isn't the Eldar Codex in yet?? LOL JUST KIDDING

Seriously though, I (and many others) am very grateful that you decided to keep volunteering for this

I did report the bug just like i did in the past, I only made the post when I saw that the bug was already reported by someone else and it went so many months with no answer, it simply got ignored.

Seemed to me like the general concensus was 'F*** Orks' as another user here pointed out 'i dont play orks so screw them', that's what i had a problem with. Supplements have been pretty much written very similar across the board there's no reason to deny Orks and let everyone else into the Tree House.

As for the kitchen and drink denial example. I specifically said 'purposely' deny them, meaning you have more than just one flavor available but you simply don't want to allow anyone else to drink anything other than sprite just because you said so.

All im asking is that if it's a gray area, and you aren't 100% certain on your interpretation's validity, to at least give the users the option to play it the way they see fit. The game itself has been OPENED up we all know unbound is a thing now. Never would i have imagined that there would ever be a legal option to 'use whatever you want' in 40k, AB should follow similarly in those steps and let users have a bit more freedom. I am guilty as i'm sure many of you are, of over relying on AB for rules in the past back in the early 2.0 days i didn't even bother reading my codex because AB seemed to always be right.

The days of users using AB as some sort of 10 commandments of 40k are long gone. Now we get page references and you have to actually read your book, understand it. And like with any good book read by more than 1 source, there is going to be multiple interpretations on some things. Allowing us the option to choose which side of the argument we fall onto in these gray areas, is not a detriment, it enpowers us. If an opponent disagrees with our list then let US deal with that argument, in tournament play they can regulate themselves. In friendly pick up games the level of rules scrutiny just isn't the same, and people will more than likely house rule things.

It really does feel like i'm under AB's 'house rule' when i try to create my Ork army lists, and it's a house rule that a minority would agree with to boot.

Welcome to the club, we had a huge ongoing discussion over the Space Marines on here, it took us nearly 3 months to get consensus that the sergeants could take 2 (for want of a better way of putting it) 'unusual' weapons, such as a power fist and a plasma pistol.