To the Users of AB40K files : How may we help you!

[shaggai]

Greetings to you from the AB40K team,

Some of you who are on this web site may be familiar with or use the program known as Army Builder from Lone Wolf. We are the people who maintain the files for that program which handle the 40K army lists.

This is a letter sent to this web site and a few others in an effort to find the best way that the 40K files can serve you, the users. We are currently at a design crossroads and we like to find out what the users, want, like, and dislike about the way that the AB40K files work , what you would like to see with done with them, and what you would hate to see included/deleted.

This is not a letter to argue the merits of the program or defend against any who do not like the program, the files, or have issues with the designers of the Army Builder program. This is also not going to be used as a forum about bugs or other problems in interpretation of RAW, RAI, or how these relate to the file.

As a sample of what we intend to do, those familiar with the interface know that you are greeted with a roster selection screen which has various options. Currently as the game stands, there are no FOC alterations before a scenario begins as there were in the 3rd Edition. We plan to jettison these in the near future. (Note Planetstrike is in the future, and while it will modify the the FOC, we will cross that bridge when it occurs.) Now the question is do we? That is what we are asking the users for comments on.

Another sample is Special Characters. In 3E and 4E, Special characters were often limited by points or other factors. This cannot be changed. However, many tournaments throughout the years often had bans on Special Characters and thus the files have a switch which toggles a roster to show or hide Special Characters. Now, it seems like many of the latter 4E codices as well as the newer 5E codices consider Special Characters as something to take with no restrictions. should we continue to have this, should we reverse it so special characters always show and the switch be used to hide the special characters. This is one that comments are appreciated on as there is not a month which goes past where a bug report references that a user cannot find a "named" character and we have to tell them about the Special Characters switch.

Other issues that we would like comments on are the use of Cityfight in our files - do we really need to have them, especially since it got supplanted by Cities of Death?

Should we continue to have support for Kill Team and Combat Patrol - even though they are not within 5E rules?

If you, the users, could lets us know what you think of these, or any other issues - please post here.

Many Thanks for your time,
The AB40K maintainers.

[dbgoldberg323]

Note to readers: This is just my opinion and obviously will not have much impact on the AB40k files by itself. I'm not trying to dictate what will and will not be in the next major overhaul, I'm just expressing my opinion. Please just reply with your opinions.

To keep this application light-weight and less tedious to program, I believe that the AB40k main file should only support the current edition's core rules and main supplements (i.e. 5th edition, Apocalypse (and reloaded), Planetstrike, Cities of Death, etc).

I think eliminating the special character switch would be appropriate considering 5th Edition codecies don't make you ask permission to use them and considers them normal codex choices, unlike 4th edition where it was the opposite. If you don't want to use special characters, there shouldn't be excessive functionality just to do that. Simply don't take the special characters!!!

Options such as FOC changes would be a good thing to incorporate in my opinion considering Planetstrike will call for different FOC's. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to able to program this, but being able to click checkboxes to enable a force org slot and then being able to click a "+" or "-" to increase/decrease allowed choices in that force org slot would be really cool.

As for items like "40k in 40 minutes", Combat Patrol, and Kill Teams, (which were some really nice alternate game rules for 4th edition) they ARE NOT 5th-ed legal and in my opinion should be omitted. This means less programming/re-tooling for AB40k.org and less confusion for new W40k players looking through the AB40k file's options.

Extras that I think could be incorporated into current AB40k data files would be movement speeds (or an option to view them), and possibly an option to view structure points/shields/wounds as bubbles to be filled in when a Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature takes damage (possibly also having wound boxes for multi-wound characters and monstrous creatures). Being able to show a damage chart for super heavy's that would allow you to keep track of what has been done to that vehicle would be icing on the cake although somewhat extensive to program I'm sure.

Well, that's all I've got! I can't wait to see what other people come up with!

[shaten]

1. Special Characters - I like the switch and think it should be kept as people and tournaments like to play with various twist and this is a common one.
2. FOC - Having the ability to template a custom FOC would be nice.
3. Special codexs should be kept like cities of Death (but remove old codexs that have been replaced).
4. 40k in 40m uses some of the patrol team and combat patrol.

I guess I'm just a person that likes more options than fewer ones. The default should be a standard FOC with all the standard stuff thrown in, but I like the ability to select different FOC and different rule sets to have fun.

Note: I see BOLS stuff got deleted which makes me sad as I play a Arbites and genestealer cult army

[Akaiyou]

Finally i'm able to log back in!

Ok i'm glad this topic came up because I had a couple things I've been wanting.

1. I want custom FOC options. But there should be some sort of 'mark' so that other players who see the list know it is not following the standard FOC.

2. Special Characters should be included as it is part of the new rules.

3. Speaking of new rules, I've been wondering why old scenarios haven't been removed. So that's a good idea as mentioned above. Old scenarios should've been done with in the last update to the 4th edition rules where they were still relevant. Removing them helps since it's simpler and you can find the scenario you want easier.

4. One thing I really would like to see is the removal of army builder cluster and group warnings. It makes for much bigger print outs and becomes generally more confusing. Specially when you want to group stuff together which I like doing.

Example: I want 3 units of Tau Fire Warriors in my army list. I click the option 3 times and I get 3 separate lines. I will usually drag and drop them all into the same line of Troops to avoid cluster. However this becomes a problem when I want to add a devilfish to one of the units in the group and I get a warning telling me I've exceeded vehicle capacity, even though the units are simply under the same heading.

5. I would love to see more variety in the printouts. Some times you want something really simple perhaps even just the name, size and options taken by a unit, without the stats. And other times you don't have a codex and want to proxy an army before buying it and you could use the normal in-depth info of army builder.

But having the option to take a very simplified version that includes no stats and maybe an option to not include point costs. Comes in very handy when you want to save your army list and post it online since GW forbids everyone from posting stats and points. This usually ends up in army builder print outs being frowned upon.

6. Since I own 5 armies and have been using army builder from the moment I began playing 40k. I always wanted to see army builder include unit price (in dollars). I've seen many others make the same comment about it being a possibly very useful feature.

If you want to buy into a new army and you want to know an estimate of what your dream army list would cost to buy.

7. And last but not least it would be good to include stuff like "number of scoring units" or "total kill points", right where you normally also include total number of models or phase out number. Scoring units and total kill points has become one of the main focus points in 5th edition.

[dbgoldberg323]

...But having the option to take a very simplified version that includes no stats and maybe an option to not include point costs. Comes in very handy when you want to save your army list and post it online since GW forbids everyone from posting stats and points. This usually ends up in army builder print outs being frowned upon...

...And last but not least it would be good to include stuff like "number of scoring units" or "total kill points", right where you normally also include total number of models or phase out number. Scoring units and total kill points has become one of the main focus points in 5th edition...

Wow! Two great points, I can't believe I didn't think of these! These would be awesome to have!

[Spack]

6. Since I own 5 armies and have been using army builder from the moment I began playing 40k. I always wanted to see army builder include unit price (in dollars). I've seen many others make the same comment about it being a possibly very useful feature.

If you want to buy into a new army and you want to know an estimate of what your dream army list would cost to buy.

I can't see that this would be feasible. You want US dollars; some might want UK sterling, other Euros, still more Canadian dollars, etc etc. Putting every localised RRP in just wouldn't be possible (putting even 1 in probably isn't). On top of that, how do you deal with models that have no GW model? And then there's price changes, and new models replacing older ones at new prices, etc etc. It really wouldn't be possible to keep all that up to date.

[shaggai]

6. Since I own 5 armies and have been using army builder from the moment I began playing 40k. I always wanted to see army builder include unit price (in dollars). I've seen many others make the same comment about it being a possibly very useful feature.

If you want to buy into a new army and you want to know an estimate of what your dream army list would cost to buy.

I can't see that this would be feasible. You want US dollars; some might want UK sterling, other Euros, still more Canadian dollars, etc etc. Putting every localised RRP in just wouldn't be possible (putting even 1 in probably isn't). On top of that, how do you deal with models that have no GW model? And then there's price changes, and new models replacing older ones at new prices, etc etc. It really wouldn't be possible to keep all that up to date.

I thought about something like this, but more as an editorial about the recent princing "adjustment" by GW and the reissue of the IG - under the title of "How Much is that Squad Worth."

Could perhaps have something though in a cross platform item with LW's Card Vault - since that is set up for pricing.

[shaggai]

7. And last but not least it would be good to include stuff like "number of scoring units" or "total kill points", right where you normally also include total number of models or phase out number. Scoring units and total kill points has become one of the main focus points in 5th edition.

Thought about this when we first started with the 5E files, and it could be implimented rather easily but...

1) scoring units should be rather easy as it's just troops. Unless a special scenrio rule changes that, and of course we would have to add the programming for it - not really a problem, just a little additional work for dubious gaming benefit.

2) Kill points again is rather easy calculation wise (was probably harder to make the Necron Phase out work). It would just require a little modification for all the maintainers to plug in the proper stat or tag to the proper unit.
The bigger problem I see if when Tournaments change these for their own purpose - such as one of the 'Ard Boyz 2009 scenarios where HQs are worth 5 points when if they were programmed it would be one. Or if they do something crazier such as only squads with 5+ models are worth a KP.
It leads us into a situation where it is imperative to change the files within a limited scope of time for possibly a single given situation.

Note the above does NOT mean that KP and scoring units will/will not be instituted. Just some comments on feasibility versus gaming value.

[Spack]

1) scoring units should be rather easy as it's just troops. Unless a special scenrio rule changes that, and of course we would have to add the programming for it - not really a problem, just a little additional work for dubious gaming benefit.

It's not quite as simple as just Troops, or scenarios. For instance, Sternguard with Kantor become scoring. Vehicles as Troops are not scoring either (eg DKoK Hades).

2) Kill points again is rather easy calculation wise (was probably harder to make the Necron Phase out work). It would just require a little modification for all the maintainers to plug in the proper stat or tag to the proper unit.

There's also the issue of dealing with the combat squad rules, and other special rules for units. Do you list those units as 1, 2, or more KPs? And then there's the combining of squads - IG Platoon infantry squads.

[jlong05]

Vehicles as Troops are not scoring either (eg DKoK Hades).

Additionally, you open up the arguments that some Vehicles as Troops are scoring due to their Codex stating they are(such as the Dark Angels Landspeeders that are in Ravenwing squads.

[Stelek]

My long winded opinion is:

1) I think you should have all Codices as part of the 'official' package, and GW rulesets if you desire.

2) With a toggle, I think you can incorporate all 'official' rules. Sort of how you have the special characters now. There definitely needs to be a big fat disclaimer at the TOP of the army builder output on EVERY page saying this is not a standard codex list (or something). A watermark would be ideal but I think that's not possible, sadly as I think that's a post generation printer effect. Anyway I think the solution for all of the planetstrike, cities of death, and apocalypse stuff is just to give them a toggle on or off. It's certainly 'official' GW stuff, but it's use varies greatly from country to country (being in the US, I've never used any of it and probably won't ever use it).

3) GW can forbid everyone from posting stats and points, but fair use prohibits them from doing so. Just an urban myth, perpetrated by big websites for some reason. Never have figured that out.

4) With all fan generated content (like the bols stuff) I think putting it into the fans hands would suffice. If GW doesn't like it, killing that file off won't impact the main files or this site. While I am sure there are plenty of people who want something other than the official codices, I have yet to see GW ever publish one or even mention such--and there is always someone trying at major events. I think that speaks to their real attitude about fan content--I have always felt it's a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with them.

5) About the money thing--that's something that was explored when I was doing this. GW did not want deep linking to their site, and since that was the only way to do it without making the maintainers insane--it died. Doing it now with the state of GW's site being a flash driven monster, well there's no way to pull that data out. I don't think GW would give it's blessing for that and I dunno if LW would dig it either. Kinda sucks, but I think that's asking too much of the AB system (and yourselves).

6) Custom FOC: I think this should be considered seriously. Giving end users the power to make illegal for normal play lists is not really an awesome idea. Most tournaments rely on AB being 'correct' to vet lists for them, and only do a cursory scan of list + models. The cheaters (there always are some, sadly) use excel or hand write it out illegibly, and if you give people the ability to do this with AB...most of the point of AB will be gone.

I don't like the output of AB, never have really, but at least I can read it semi-quickly although a 'tournament output' setting would greatly alleviate most concerns. I envisioned this a long time ago but LW was working on hero builder and haven't done much with AB in the years since then. All it is is a output printed at the top of the sheet that states this particular roster uses only official codices without modification, and of course if it doesn't meet that requirement it should output that so it's clearly not legal.

Like in italics: 'This is a tournament ready 5E list using only GW codexes'

And in bold: 'This list uses unofficial or alternative rulesets and is not tournament ready'

I think doing that would be the best possible way to make AB still serve it's purpose and give it a new one.

[Stelek]

Oh and how erm limited are your math skills you can't figure out KP's?

GW dumbed down the game and removed VP's because that was too complicated, yes?

If you can't count to 20, boy. =|

[Alpharius]

First: I second all of Steleks points.

I would like special characters/named characters to be part of the official army lists as they are an integrated part of multiple codexes now.
I couldn't care less that some TO's ban SC/NC, if someone participates in such a tournament those people can just select anything else than SC/NC.

Isn't it about time that people get over their fear of SC/NC? Maybe it will go a little faster when people see SC/NC as part of the official army lists. Furthermore, the maintainers won't have to answer people all the time about toggling them on/off.

Who needs KP's??? 1 unit dead = 1 KP... even my 5 year old sister can figure that out.

Scoring units? I don't need it and I think it's unneccessay because plenty TO's and home grown missions change the conditions of what counts as scoring all the time.

I have no need whatsoever of outdated stuff like killteam, combat patrol and cityfight.
I fully understand that some people might still want it, but I don't think it should be part of the official codexes and rulesets.


Best regards
Chris

[Styx]

I agree FOC is only useful for Planetstrike.

Also on Special Characters, I like the idea of the filter in case people don't want them included in their build. I will admit, I dislike how GW has pushed special characters into the game and would rather see them go away in favor of the more generic ones. To me special characters has only a purpose in a story driven game or Apoclapse. As for tournament bans, people just need to get over it. Like it or not, they are legal.

As I had suggested before on another thread, set the fanfiles as a seperate download.

Removal of Kill teams, 40k in a flash, etc is fine, I really don't see many people using them like before and as someone said the rules are a bit dated for 5th. Only COD really applies and is worthwhile...perhaps an options switch for COD, Planetstrike and Apocolapse options to change how the roster allows in selection, FOC and rules it plugs in? This may get cumbersome though.

Scoring and KPs are perhaps something nice at the end but only if people really want them. It's not hard to figure it out and if anything should be the lowest task on the AB worklist if so. It's a nice thought, but not a huge need IMO.

[chtiofonce]

Hey,

Been using AB for a long time, and hopefully will for long still

First off thanks for the maintenance effort which is to me the real value behind this soft.

I second all of Steleks points.

+1

I'd like an output army list in .txt version that I can use to share and discuss lists easily on the internet. As a TO, I'd like a format I can easily check and which players can use easily in game. It is a shame that most veteran tournament players I know in europe complain about this format, it should be contributing to AB's success instead of impeding it. This is an example of what has became the format of reference in the french championship this season : http://dl.free.fr/l7aPknngN. It's still in french but you will quickly get the meaning of the entries. I can expend on the topic if you're interested.

Special mentions à la "Army builder approved " like Stelek suggested would be great, but only valuable if you output the file in pdf or picture format as any sneaky bastard can copy paste the mention in a txt or html format. That would be a great functionnality for a TO, but also good to contribute on AB brand image...

KP and operationnal units are so fundamental in v5 lists it would be great to count them automatically. I dont care at all about v4 scenari & ways and i care almost as much about game add ons such as apocalypse, but i can see an interest in keeping it available somewhere separate from the 'traditional/classic' usage and version.

About the price debate. Of course this would be great to have this but obstacles seem numerous (required partnerships or development). As an IT consultant I can only advise you to focus on improving your primary function (building lists) rather than diversify in another (collecting armies/models). So developments to cover this function should imo be minimized, althought there can be some. For instance, you could offer a price book that the user can fill all by himself. I know it seems a bit basic ( remember I said 'minimized' ) and yet, that would be interesting for me to have this especially when planning a new army collection : when i need to know roughly what selection of models costs me...today i do it on a spreadsheet although i very much prefer AB to build lists.

Last but not least, I really would appreciate that the files by older "versions" can be read when I install a patch. Its a huge waste of time and files to not support files build by older versions...as a consequence I tend to only build 'new lists' or rebuild from scratch once I installed a patched which destroyed compatibility...

Make sure to let us know what you do with those inputs.

cheers

chtiofonce