What does the community have to do for you to listen?

[Petercles]

Dear AB40k Maintainers,

I am a massive fan of the work you have done for our Warhammer 40k files. I have used AB40k files for many years and you guys are the main reason that I recommend Army Builder to other players, staff and customers in my store. Lately there has been the issues with the space marine files not working properly due to the sergeants not being able to swap a bolter for a chainsword, then a chainsword for a ranged or melee weapon.

I have spoken to Games Workshop staff on many occasions while making orders for stock and they agree that you can do the swap because common sense to do so or they would loose money on all the sergeants that they sell individually and change load outs that have become a staple to space marines that were never intended to be affected. Because Games Workshop believes this, they will probably never do a FAQ on a rule that is not broken and makes sense most players.

I am not writing to upset, offend or criticize your work but you have a massive community that feel your files are not correct and what gives you the right to be the final ruling instead of listening to the community that backs you and working out a solution that we can all agree on.I have seen people ask how to modify their own files with no one offering support, threads are being locked instead of answers and moderators just being rude and threatening.

Why keep fighting with the community? They are going to find something else to use to make army lists because your files will not allow them to do what they are allowed to do and what the rules have intended.

I have trouble recommending your hard work to anyone as majority of players that buy products in my store are Space Marines, so why should I recommend Army Builder at all to players when Warhammer 40k the main seller in my store.

Do you want your community to abandon you?

if it is such an issue to fix something as little as a weapon load out that your community continue to request then why even keep working on files.

I don't want you to stop, you have done an amazing job.

Is there anything the community can do to change your minds? Will it take a petition to change your files, do you need volunteers to help with work load or do you want us that all have issues to leave and use battle scribe which I feel is a inferior product.

Thank you for all your time and hard work.

Regards,

Peter.

[Magpie]

Add my support to this one.

We don't need the Ab40k guys to be telling us what the rules are, we know that each in our own way. What we are imploring you to do is to make AB the awesome tool it has always been up to this point.

I get that you guys don't agree with the interpretation of the rule and I might tend to agree but the simple fact is in my area it has been decided by the GW staff that the Sgt can swap to a chainsword and thence to something on the melee or ranged table.Judging by the continued beseeching of a great many others I see I am not alone in this.

I've tried to change the files to reflect that but I can't work it out.

Please, please, please, either A: change the setup to give us that ability or B: Write a procedure so we can change it ourselves.

[PitFriend]

I'll add my agreement to these sentiments. I love Army Builder but I haven't been able to use it since I can't make a legal Space Marine army using the current files. I've been actually considering buying a Cody of the interactive ecodex so I can use GW's maker to build my list. I keep checking in to see if anything has changed. Please reconsider your stance on the SM Sergeants.

[mearn4d10]

Thirded. The least we ask is the option to ourselves make our AB files match what GW's own builder says is legal.

(Gah, wasn't going to bring up any argument points, my bad.)

[The Emperor]

"I've been actually considering buying a Cody of the interactive ecodex so I can use GW's maker to build my list."

I've already done so, because it's extremely frustrating to see Army Builder not support this four months after the release, and haven't been using Army Builder as much lately as a result. I'm a Space Marine player, so what I need is an Army Builder file which produces a rules legal Space Marine list, and at present it doesn't do so. There are several proofs which point to just that being the case.

- The builder from the digital Codex: Space Marines allows for Sergeants to replace their Boltgun for a Chainsword and then exchange that Chainsword for an item from the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons list.
- The FAQ which was released gave Bike Squads the ability to exchange their Bolt Pistols for a Chainsword so that they could then exchange that Chainsword for a Special Weapon (So right there is a RAW example of how Sergeants in other squads are supposed to work, as you may exchange your base armament for a Close Combat Weapon, and then exchange that Close Combat Weapon for another item from the Wargear List).
- The head of the Games Workshop: Digital Editions page, Eddie, when specifically asked, has stated that a Sergeant which has taken a choice from both the Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons lists is perfectly legal.
- Sergeants constructed in that way have been used by games designers in battle reports.
- Sergeants constructed in that way have been advertised in Codex: Space Marines and other products which have been released since then.

I don't understand why any further proof is necessary, particularly when one unit has already been specifically FAQ'd to allow that very same option. Like the OP, I also used to gladly advise others to buy Army Builder, but no longer.

[Homer_S]

- Sergeants constructed in that way have been used by games designers in battle reports.

Can you point me to the issue and page for this? I was looking and didn't see any since the release through November.

Homer

[The Emperor]

The issue which came out the month Codex: Space Marines came out, with the Black Templars Battle Report. I was wrong in that it's actually a Crusader Squad, and not a Tactical Squad, even though the Black Templars army has two squads outfitted no differently than a typical Tactical Squad. Look under "Crusader Squad Oswin", though. The Sword Brother (AKA Sergeant), is equipped with a Power Fist and Combi-Grav. It's an applicable example because he only starts equipped with a Boltgun and Bolt Pistol. He's able to take both, however, because he's allowed in the unit entry to replace his Boltgun with a Chainsword, just as the Sergeant in other squads may exchange his Boltgun for a Chainsword, which he then trades for an item from the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons list. THAT is how he was able to take a Power Fist and a Combi-Grav, by trading in his Boltgun for a Chainsword, and then trading his Chainsword for the Power Fist or Combi-Grav.

Then look under Crusader Squad Friedrich. The Sword Brother there is equipped with a Bolt Pistol and a Power Fist. According to that mistaken interpretation of RAW, he's not allowed to trade in his Boltgun for a Power Fist, and yet that appears to be what he did in order to keep his Bolt Pistol. Clearly he was able to be equipped like that because he traded in his Boltgun for a Chainsword, and then traded the Chainsword for a Power Fist.

The equipment selections on those two Sword Brothers only makes sense if one assumes that it was permissible to exchange the Boltgun for a Chainsword and then exchange the Chainsword for a weapon from the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons list.

NOTE: One Initiate may take a Power Fist, but it's specifically identified as an Initiate, which means that that doesn't include Sword Brothers or Neophytes, just as upgrading a Veteran to an Apothecary in a Command Squad prevents that Apothecary from selecting upgrades specifically limited to Veterans, so that's not how they were able to select those Power Fists.

So right there we have an example of someone associated with Games Workshop under the belief that it's permissible to exchange a Boltgun for a Chainsword and then exchanging the Chainsword for an item off of the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons lists. Then look at the FAQ released by Games Workshop the day Codex: Space Marines was released. According to the entry under Bike Squad, Bike Squads may select two choices from the Special Weapons list, but under the Special Weapons list, it states that a model may only exchange a melee weapon or a boltgun for a Special Weapon, and Bike Squads had neither. So what was Games Workshop's solution to that? It was to give Bike Squads the option to exchange their Bolt Pistols for Chainswords, so that they could then exchange those Chainswords for a Special Weapon. It's obvious the file writer thinks that's the case, as Bike Squads in the Army Builder are able to take Special Weapons, so why would other squads work differently? Why can Bike Squads exchange their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword, and thus take a Special Weapon, but a Tactical Squad Sergeant can't exchange his Boltgun for a Chainsword, and thus select a Ranged Weapon?

Another example of someone associated with Games Workshop believing it's permissible to exchange a Boltgun for a Chainsword and then exchanging the Chainsword for an item off of the Ranged Weapons or Melee Weapons lists occurred on the Games Workshop Digital Editions page on Facebook, where someone asked if it was permissible under current rules to equip a Tactical Squad Sergeant with a Power Fist and a Combi-Weapon. He was told that, yes, you CAN do that. That interpretation is only possible if, once again, you believe that it's permissible to exchange a Boltgun for a Chainsword, and then exchange that Chainsword for an item from the Ranged/Melee Weapons lists.

Every time Games Workshop has touched on the subject in one way or another, it's always been to fall on the side of allowing Space Marines to exchange an equipped weapon for a Chainsword, and then exchange that Chainsword for something else off of the Wargear list. And I don't understand how anyone could look at that and think that it works otherwise. The FAQ giving Bike Squads the ability to exchange Bolt Pistols for Chainswords so that they could then select Special Weapons should've been enough on its own.

[Magpie]

Just like to pass on my thanks to the team for all their hard work over the last year or so that I have availed myself to so I can build my lists using their datafiles.

I'd also like to extend my thanks to the team for make easy for me a decision that up 'til now was quite vexing.

I'd long teetered between Army Builder and Battlescribe however given the recalcitrance of the authors over this issue I was pushed close enough to Battlescribe to give it a serious go and I have found it to be far more useful and convenient in many ways. It's also very easy to create you own files for and the freedom from relying on the vagaries of others has now been shown to be well worth the swap.

So I'll be taking your advice of "do it yourself if your not happy" and leave you to your, dwindling, little empire.

[gungagreg]

I agree with the sentiments and thank the poster for being calm and polite - I'm hoping that at some point the maintainers will realize that they are running counter to both their community and the 40K community at large. It's both sad and perplexing that this is viewed by them as such a blocker - why aren't your community members being listened to? You have people constantly posting bugs on this and EVERYONE supporting it except the maintaining team. All this is doing, as others have said, is drive people away from the tool and frankly turn opinion against the hard and fantastic work being done.

This would, in many codexes, be a minor issue barely worthy of this level of community "unrest" but what's happening here is we have THE major codex of the game with the most followers...it would be great to have the community listened to and the change made.

[fenrick]

I also back the OP. I made reference to the White Dwarf article mentioned several posts up a few months ago in a now locked thread. The disheartening response I received was that battle reports are known to have non-std load outs and should not be taken as RAW.

I gave up on the site and have gotten around the issue by recoding the file myself, but that proves problematic when updates/enhancements are released to the file set.

For all the great work done by the maintainers, I for one would be very happy if the number of users clearly against the current interpretations of the SM maintainer would be listened to.

My thanks to the OP and everyone else for bringing this back up.

[Petercles]

Thank you to everyone that has posted support. The AB40k files are vital part to many players in my gaming community and many other groups around the world, I just want to ensure that they stay that way.

The work that the maintainers have do is incredible and it is a shame that such a minor issue has caused so many problems.

I hope this can be resolved sooner than later.

Regards,

Peter.

[jboweruk]

I back it too, I feel sad that in the original thread we got so much as told to 'shut up' about it, as if that would make the issue go away, sorry guys, it won't. All it will do is drive people away from AB to other sources.

[Petercles]

I keep on feeling like these posts are being ignored by the maintainers. Is there anyone from the maintainer that I can speak to about this issue? Or even get a response from the maintainers on this post regarding this issue.

I don't understand why we are being ignored as this is an issue that affects everyone and needs to be resolved.

Space Marines are a vital part from the Warhammer 40000 system and people have shown evidence that the load out is a valid option, so why can't this be fixed?

Regards,

Peter.

[jboweruk]

I'm getting the feeling this goes much deeper than that. If you notice there's hardly any 40k updates now, there's been 2 or 3 for several other systems, but 40k has no tyranids, no Stronghold Assault, No Apocalypse.... It's like they have given up on what is probably the most popular gaming system still.

[jlong05]

As I have stepped down as a maintainer for the files, I cannot give a definitive answer to your questions. I can say I stepped down for many of the same reasons you all are frustrated, but also want to point out that there are only 2 programmers providing support now. Given a new/updated rule set every month or so, it's very much the reason work is so far behind. Me dropping out last minute I am sure hasn't helped either.

Finally, the continued posts of complaints, threats, and overall whining(with or without valid reasons) is also likely to be driving those 2 off as well. Since these files were generally a labor of love of those that were supporting the files, I lost the love, and think the others are close as well.

Hopefully I am wrong about them and they chime in soon, otherwise I feel bad about the remaining long term chances of these files.