PDA

View Full Version : Army Builder's "validation" feature



Sekhmet
01-03-2009, 18:18
Do you use it?

marv335
01-03-2009, 18:21
I use it as it's an automatic system so it's hard not to.
I always check with my codex though.
AB is just to useful for making up quick speculative lists.

40kdhs
01-03-2009, 18:52
Army builder is a good program. Considering to buy it if you fall into the following category:

1- You are new to the game.
2-You don't own every codex / army book.
3- You want to have an acceptable army list in a tournament.
4-You don't remember the miscast table, all lore of magic, special rules or stat of every unit in the game.
5- You prefer to click than write your army list.
6-You don't mind spending 30 US dollars for it.

No, i don't work for its company.

Hellfury
01-03-2009, 19:04
AB is just to useful for making up quick speculative lists.

Agreed. While it is nice to print out a nice list with it as well, it is worth going over. But then again, if you own your codex for your army, your likely to know whether it is correct or not simply by the choices you make.

As long as the points costs are correct, (99.9% of the time they are) then its use for making tweaks to a list to see if something can fit is the largest boon of this application.

Simo429
01-03-2009, 19:05
can someone give me more info on army builder

ive seen it mentioned on here but im not completely sure what it does

thewizard99
01-03-2009, 19:06
i,ve used it once, or twice, with the trial version, my teacher had full copy though, but how reliable is it for the List and that, do they have the new codexs etc on it?

the1stpip
01-03-2009, 19:23
They regularly update when new codexes come out, and they fix mistakes.

Army Builder is a program, which with one click, chooses an unit, with all its various options. I find it invaluable, but then I am always tinkering with new lists and new races looking for something that interests me.

Sekhmet
01-03-2009, 19:26
just google armybuilder, should be the first link or so.

I'm in the process of writing a free, cross-platform (linux, os x, windows) and extremely user-friendly alternative to AB, but I'm considering not implementing a validation feature.

I had the theory that not many people use/trust the validation feature, and so far I think I'm right. I would rather not even have the pre-tense of validating things rather than have it possibly be wrong.

Bookwrak
01-03-2009, 20:10
No, I'm going to say you're wrong. The validation function is very useful, and I can't think of anyone who outright ignores it. That would be more than a little silly, since it's whole purpose is to help you catch slip ups. If I suddenly get a red text, I know whoops, I slipped up somewhere, such as having too many Soritas in that dominion squad when I put them in an Immolator. Honestly, I can't think of any reason not to include something as simple as, 'hey, over the point limit - too many models for that transport's capacity, too many FA slots used,' etc.

Desalbert
01-03-2009, 20:34
just google armybuilder, should be the first link or so.

I'm in the process of writing a free, cross-platform (linux, os x, windows) and extremely user-friendly alternative to AB, but I'm considering not implementing a validation feature.

I had the theory that not many people use/trust the validation feature, and so far I think I'm right. I would rather not even have the pre-tense of validating things rather than have it possibly be wrong.

With all due respect, I also disagree. The Validation feature seems to be always on the mark for me, and I use it always, to ensure that I meet all the various requirements, and same with my opponents.

Sekhmet
02-03-2009, 01:11
Validation for any of the new codexes is simple.

What's hard is something like the IG codex, where you could have something like 72 units in 6 troop slots (6 platoons, each platoon with 5 squads, a command squad, and 6 chimeras).

I'd have stuff like point counts, but something like seeing if they have too many models for a transport I don't understand. You can take the transport even if your squad doesn't fit...

The point is, besides point costs, I don't want people saying stuff like "But it let me do it in ____, so it must be legal!". As the data I'll be using (codexes) is copyrighted, I can't include that data with the program and thus I won't have as much control over it as I'd like.

sneb
02-03-2009, 01:17
can someone give me more info on army builder

ive seen it mentioned on here but im not completely sure what it does


http://wolflair.com/

this is the home page for the company you can download a demo

nightgant98c
02-03-2009, 01:31
I love army builder. It's a quick and easy way to make a list. The validation feature is nice, but it has problems. If a file for a codex has an error, then it thinks it's legal, when it might not be. Which is why you should check against your codex.

AlphaLegionMarine
02-03-2009, 01:38
Army Builder is awesome, but you have to look for issues. Like if you take an Assassin in a Dark Elf army and you do not list him as your general, but instead list a hero as your general, Army Builder will mistakenly freak out because the rules are your general has to be the character with the highest ldeadership, but the LD10 Assassin can not be a leader.

Sekhmet
02-03-2009, 08:12
hm.. this poll has been very informative, but I'd like more responses. :)

Starchild
02-03-2009, 09:10
Army Builder is only as good as the army list files. If there are no flaws in your army's AB file, it works perfectly. If there are errors, it's a different story. For example, the last time I checked, Aspect Warrior squads could go up to 11 (10 + Exarch) :rolleyes:

Hence, the need for the AB40k forum, so we can report mistakes like the one I just mentioned.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 10:39
Army builder is nice, but it has issues as the file developers go by a RAW interpretation and that often is Read As they Want and not an actual logical interpretation. This can lead to issues. For example, I play a IA5 Krieg Siege Army, but for some reason they flag it as invalid because its out of IA5. Being in IA5 in no way invalidates the list. Nowhere does it say "this is IA5 so its not valid".

Quite the contrary, it says stuff in IA is very valid and they write an entire article on it in every IA. They told me their reasoning for this is because "its not normally allowed in tournaments". WTF does that have to do with being valid? I'll tell you. Nothing. So no matter what type of game I'm trying to play, the stupid thing always says my list is invalid, which it is not. And good luck trying to reason with the creators, they are some of the most impossible to reason with people you will find. It almost always ends up with "well thats my interpretation and I'm making it so **** off".

So, in closing, I use it, but with a huge grain of salt. I give it the once over then I check the codex afterwords because its not reliable. It does print the lists in a very nice format though.

Tves
02-03-2009, 14:59
Yes, I use it. Normally it helps me remind me what I have left to do, or like someone said if I slip up.

What really bugs me about army builder though is the 120 day wait for the authentication code recycling. As my computer crashed only a few weeks after setting the program up in the first place. Now I still have nearly 2 months of waiting left before I can use it in the non demo mode. Also if you update the program you need to re-authenticate it, or so I think. Which is a pain if you've set the program up recently.

Rick Blaine
02-03-2009, 15:12
My memory is more reliable than Army Builder.

Bookwrak
02-03-2009, 15:51
Highly unlikely, unless you play one army and rarely vary your list. :chrome:

Army builder is nice, but it has issues as the file developers go by a RAW interpretation and that often is Read As they Want and not an actual logical interpretation. This can lead to issues. For example, I play a IA5 Krieg Siege Army, but for some reason they flag it as invalid because its out of IA5.
I very much doubt that.

Do you use doctrines? Because if you've selected doctrines for an IG list, and then changed it over to the Krieg variant, the doctrines would still be checked off, which would trigger the invalid warning message.

The file makers do not use, 'Read as they Want.' They go by Rules As Written, even if RAW is silly, because they've said that it's not their place to make judgment calls on the rules.

DarkReaver
02-03-2009, 15:55
My memory is more reliable than Army Builder.

Same here with me. My mind hasn't failed me once yet with my armylists.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 15:57
Highly unlikely, unless you play one army and rarely vary your list. :chrome:

I very much doubt that.

Do you use doctrines? Because if you've selected doctrines for an IG list, and then changed it over to the Krieg variant, the doctrines would still be checked off, which would trigger the invalid warning message.

The file makers do not use, 'Read as they Want.' They go by Rules As Written, even if RAW is silly, because they've said that it's not their place to make judgment calls on the rules.

Doubt it all you want, thats what I was told when I put in the bug report on their website. As far as the RAW is concerned, most people I know play by RAI, as the RAWyers get shunned quickly because they are not fun to play with. RAI is pretty easy to figure out 99% of the time, so that "its not my place" is just a cop out.

Bookwrak
02-03-2009, 15:59
That's very odd then, given that they include options for multiple FW lists in various armies, that as far as I'm aware of, don't trigger validation warnings.

shelor007
02-03-2009, 16:12
Army Builder is a very useful tool. Just don't use it as a crutch.

You should know your Codex well enough to spot any errors AB makes. If you do not, take an hour or two and re-read your Codex.

AB creates organized, clear lists that make gaming easier. You can easily share army lists with your opponent. Few opponents are going to question an AB list, where they might look askance at a hand-written list using the chicken scrawl hieroglyphics most gamers call their handwriting.

Any opponent who uses a word processor or a spreadsheet to make their list, I am going to check their math. If they are using AB, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. (Anyone who is going to cheat by modifying the AB files is going to cheat in other ways, and I will catch them then.)

Lord Cook
02-03-2009, 17:22
I've had the same codex for so long that I've long since had the entire book memorized. And that's the only army I play. So no AB for me.

schristofersen
02-03-2009, 17:34
I'm in the process of writing a free, cross-platform (linux, os x, windows) and extremely user-friendly alternative to AB, but I'm considering not implementing a validation feature.

Oh man... I'd love to not use bootcamp anymore just to run AB...If you manage this i'll have your little C'tan babies.

40kdhs
02-03-2009, 18:16
AB's validation feature is very good.

Angelus Mortis
02-03-2009, 18:43
That's very odd then, given that they include options for multiple FW lists in various armies, that as far as I'm aware of, don't trigger validation warnings.

Which was kind of my point. It says they are invalid when they are not. Boot yours up and select a Krieg Siege army. I'm talking about the SIEGE army, and not the standard Krieg list. Two different animals. Same goes with the Elyssian D-99 detachment. That gets flags as well.

Spacker
02-03-2009, 20:07
If you click the validation warnings button it doesn't say it's invalid - it simply has a note that says "Warning: The current roster or units within it may need opponents permission to use", which it does for all non-codex lists.

Or are you talking about the "Ruleset X is invalid for current settings" warning which appears if you select the wrong rule options? To avoid that make sure that you turn OFF the Imperial Armour option (as you can't take additional IA units in those lists, they are self-contained), and in Core/Expansion lists tick the "Expansion lists/units" option - then that "Ruleset X invalid" message will disappear.