Survey on the use of Army Builder for Tournaments, major and minor

[RedScorpionsGirl]

To start this off right, I'd like to get opinions of those who have run/directly participated in 40k tournaments about Army Builder software. If you have a few minutes and wouldn't mind answering a couple questions, I'd appreciate it!

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?

6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?

Thanks for the imput everyone, I appreciate it.

-=- A bit of information to clarify the outside aspects of this questionairre-=-

1. Army builder is readily available in this situation, and doesn't need to be purchased. Similar to how Adepticon has theirs set up. the only difference being that it costs $2-5.00 to print lists (depending on if it is one, two or three lists), to reimburse for supplies.

[DarkLink]

1. I've participated in a number of tournaments on the west coast.

2. None of the tournaments have preferred army builder, let alone required it. Usually you just have to print your list. Army builder is very common, though. Maybe three out of four opponents use it, as a very rough estimate.

3. Bluntly, I hate army builder, so I'm glad it's not required.

4. I've never used army builder, but I hate the output format. It's impossible to read. You can't tell what's actually in a unit, because that useful information is buried beneath piles of useless crap. The list takes up so much room that at 2000pts it's often three pages long, and it doesn't organize units by FOC so it can be tough to figure out how many troops your opponent has, for example.

5. No army builder. All that should be required is printed, with all units listed clearly and all upgrades listed, and bring a codex for reference. For example:

HQ
Grand Master, Rad/Psykotroke/Blind Grenades.....210

Troops
10 GKSS, 2 Psycannons, Daemonhammer on Justicar......230
Rhino, Seachlight................................41

and so on



6. As I mentioned, I hate the list output. It's not just that it lists every possible minute detail, including irrelevant ones, taking up space and making the list impossible to read. Much of the format is confusing to read. It lists the total models in the unit, but it counts dedicated transports, and lists some individual models separately and some in groups, until you can't even figure out how many models are actually in the unit.

The unit of GKSS listed above would look something like this: Total models: #11, Total Models: #10, 9 Grey Knights, 1 Justicar, 7 Grey Knights with Swords and Storm Bolters, 2 Grey Knights with Psycannons, 1 Hammer on Justicar, 1 Rhino.

See how much more difficult to read than my example above? I know that's not exactly how army builder formats unit entries, but it's not far off. It's very confusing. You can't just glance at the entry and think 'ok, there's a strike squad of 10 Grey Knights with 2 psycannons and a hammer in a Rhino'.

Aside from the format, there's too much redundant and useless information listed. The statline for every single model gets in the way, especially for Marines where almost everything is just straight 4s. Listing pieces of wargear like Bolters, Frag/Krak grenades, etc that everyone already knows the unit has just takes up more space. The more space that is wasted on useless information like that the more difficult it is to read. I want to be able to take one glance at a list and know what units I'm facing, and I can't do that with army builder because I have to pull out my reading glasses and take notes just to figure out what's going on (ok, I don't actually need reading glasses since I'm still young, but you get my point).

So chop out all of that stuff, and bring the codex. If your opponent has a question about stats, then pull out the codex and show him.

And one last thing that I mentioned earlier as well, army builder doesn't organize by FOC. I can't tell how many troops there are without flipping through three pages of list and keeping a tally. I've had games where units of scouts/gretchins or something showed up out of nowhere because the unit entry was buried on the last page somewhere and I missed it. Organize units by what slot they take up, so that I know there really are only three troops and two heavy support units and that I'm not just missing the unit entry somewhere.

[wittdooley]

Adepticon has a station set up with Army Builder and Printer so that us forgetful folks can print out lists on a whim.

FWIW, Link, I'm fairly certain you can modify your list output in ArmyBuilder to reflect the list you were looking for.

I think army builder is a really useful tool in its full list form because it, for the most part, gives you every rule you need for your army on the 2-4 pages of print out. This can be really useful for people that are less familiar with all of their rules and can eliminate some of the need to thumb through a rulebook.

As far as requiring it... I don't think that's fair. Not everyone has the software and, TBH, Excel works just fine. I think you should require your players to have a printed copy to offer to their opponents and one for the TO. But beyond that, I think you're golden.

[DarkLink]

I've heard there's an abbreviated form, but I've never actually seen anyone use it as far as I know, so it's kind of a moot point.

[Defenestratus]

I've heard there's an abbreviated form, but I've never actually seen anyone use it as far as I know, so it's kind of a moot point.

File -> Save text summary/model list -> Tournament Output

Under the same screen you can output to several different formats if you want, this one is for Forum posting.

2000 Pts - Blood Angels Roster - Storm Ravens Swoop 2k

Total Roster Cost: 1995

: Honour Guard (6#, 470 pts)
. . 1 Librarian in Power Armour, 175 pts = (base cost 100) + Jump Pack 25 + Epistolary 50
. . 1 Honour Guard, 30 pts + Chapter Banner 30
. . . . 1 Sanguinary Novitiate, 23 pts
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)

Troops: Assault Squad (10#, 240 pts)
. . 7 Assault Squad, 126 pts = 7 * 18
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Meltagun, 28 pts = (base cost 18 + Meltagun 10)
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Meltagun, 28 pts = (base cost 18 + Meltagun 10)
. . . . 1 Sergeant, 58 pts = (base cost 28) + Thunder Hammer x1 30

Troops: Assault Squad (10#, 225 pts)
. . 7 Assault Squad, 126 pts = 7 * 18
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Flamer, 23 pts = (base cost 18 + Flamer 5)
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Flamer, 23 pts = (base cost 18 + Flamer 5)
. . . . 1 Sergeant, 53 pts = (base cost 28) + Power Fist x1 25

Troops: Death Company (11#, 355 pts)
. . 1 Reclusiarch in Power Armour, 155 pts = (base cost 130) + Jump Pack 25
. . 1 Death Company, 0 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts

Troops: Death Company Dreadnought (1#, 135 pts)
. . 1 Death Company Dreadnought, 135 pts = (base cost 125 + Heavy Flamer 10)

Heavy Support: Stormraven Gunship (1#, 215 pts)
. . 1 Stormraven Gunship, 215 pts = (base cost 200 + Extra Armor 15)

Heavy Support: Stormraven Gunship (1#, 215 pts)
. . 1 Stormraven Gunship, 215 pts = (base cost 200 + Extra Armor 15)

Elite: Furioso Dreadnought (1#, 140 pts)
. . 1 Furioso Dreadnought, 140 pts = (base cost 125 + Extra Armor 15)

Validation Report:
b-2. Apocalypse Allies: Trusted Allies only; c-1. File Version: 1.44 For Bug Reports/www.ab40k.org; b-1. Roster Options: Apocalypse, Imperial Armour, Named or Special Characters; a-1. Scenario: Normal Mission
Roster satisfies all enforced validation rules

Composition Report:
Formation: 0 (0 - 0)
Other Units: 10 (- - 0)
Legendary Units: 0 (- - 0)

Created with Army Builder® - Try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com

[Defenestratus]

I'll say this.

There are valid reasons to not like AB.

So far I haven't seen one that isn't "I like my homemade excel spreadsheet that only makes sense to me" that has any validity to it.

Complaining about AB's output is silly since its honestly one of the most configurable things about the tool.

I don't play tournaments nearly ever. Maybe once a year - but when I do, I much prefer to see an AB roster in whatever form. First of all I can pretty much trust the numbers I see on the list and second of all - I know exactly where to look when I need to find something about the list.

Its as close to a standardization as we have in lists making and standardization is a good thing.

[Chuck777]

Army Builder should never be required.

IMO, the only preference for lists should be that they are printed.

[SotonShades]

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?
Only ever been a participent.

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?
The use of Army Builder has never been mentioned in the tournament packs. This could be because I'm in the UK and it really isn't a big thing this side of the pond. More often, the only requirements are a clear, typed list. Occasionally it has to be emailed to the TO or submitted on a Forum 7 days in advance of the tournament to allow TO and judges to check it's legal.

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?
Again, AB isn't a big thing over here, so forcing people to use it who wouldn't otherwise would probably turn a good few people away. Even with the requirement to type lists and for a TO/judge to have to agree that lists were 'clear' I've still come up against opponants with an unintelligable scrawl on pieces of paper that were barely holding themselves together. More astonishingly, I saw the same list at three tournaments in a row... I'm surprised the paper lasted that long! Without proper sanctions for not submitting the list in the correct format, whatever that is, you are always going to have entrants bringing sub-par lists, and I think that is a bigger issue than forcing everyone to use one particular format, especially if they aren't used to it.

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.
N/A. I think I have maybe seen one or two AB lists across all the games at all the tournaments I have been to, and always for armies I play anyway, so could tell at a glance what everything was.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?
I feel a handwritten list SHOULD be good enough. Assuming the player sits down and takes time to write out a full list neatly and clearly. That said, most people don't hand write lists like that (I know I rarely do) and the legibility of handwriting varies so wildly that I don't think you could actually garauntee it as an option. I don't think AB, with all the plethora of information it provides, is the answer either. I'm quite happy with a typed list with, at minimum;

all units separated by FOC slot
total points cost for each individual unit (and dedicated transports separate from parent unit, but showing which unit it is attached to)
Total number of model in the unit
ALL options taken by the unit
total points cost for the army

Preferably I'd like to see all standard equipment the unit has as well, but so long as the opponant has the codex with them, it's not really vital. I also like to make a note of half VPs for each unit/transport. Makes it so much easier/quicker for totaling up at the end of the game.

6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?
I've always thought of List Writing as part of the skill of 40k. Not just being able to hone and optimise a list to create the ultimate tournament winner, but actually calculating points, searching out which options are availible, etc. Bare in mind I am from the 3rd Ed generation. I was used to having to flick half way through the codex if I wanted to add an option to a unit or character. And woe betide you should you want to look up what that piece of wargear actually did! I know not everyone views every aspect of the hobby in the same way (in fact I'm quite glad for it) but I've always found sitting down with a pen, paper and calculator to be a very rewarding way of list building. Every decision matters. Finding every point and tweaking every option really makes it feel like YOUR list. I have tried AB. Hell, I even still own the version GW sold many moons ago (although it is now completely outdated and hasn't been installed on any of my last 4 computers/laptops). None of the computerised list builders really seem to feel right for me. Typing up your list neatly can be good though. Cathartic to see your scribled notes as a complete document other human beings might possibly understand!

[Wolfshade]

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?
Participant

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?
Not required, though full rostas were required, one for the TO, and one per opponent

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?
Having recently moving to AB, I find the layout quite nice, and most people had the same standard format so that made it easire to see what people had, though WYSIWYG being compulsory wasn't too bad

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.
It made things easier in as much as people had a standardised format to use so once you get list to a format they are quite easy to read, also the inclusion of the special rules etc made things quite good and meant that codex checking was kept to a minimum. That being said, there were a couple of word/excel ones that looked very pretty and worked very well. Some of the shorthand words are ambigious "Terminators w/ LC" is that Terminators with Lightning Claws or Terminators with a Landraider Crusader. If you are familiar with your opponets army you can work it out from the points.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?
As a particiapant I think the lists should at least be typed and without contractions. I've seen a handwritten 2000pt 'nid list on a post-it note and it was illegible. Any form of standardised format (using whichever template) would be easier to work with and help people recognise tings more quickly.


6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?
I've only just started using AB and I find it to be a very useful tool, it has sped up my list building. However similar (if not nicer formats) can be achieved using the codex and some form of word processing tool.

[Chris Copeland]

I use Army Builder all the time. Thus, I almost always have an AB list on hand when I am a participant at tournies. I think that AB makes things easier but it is only one of several options out there. I think that all tournies should require a good, clean, legible list be turned in by all attendees. I think some TOs around here prefer AB but it's never been required at any tourney I've ever heard of. I can't imagine requiring the use of AB. I hope all of the above is helpful to you. Cheers! KJC

[Chris Copeland]

Follow up: I've never seen it banned... that seems a bit silly. Why would a TO do that?

[chromedog]

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant? I've been both.

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required? Some had AB to be NOT used (TO didn't have AB), others just had it as Not required. Lists needed to be correct and legible and printed, nothing more. Formats usually accepted at most events consist of .xls, .doc, .txt, .rtf OR AB lists

3. How did you feel about the response to #2? Don't have a problem. I can use a spreadsheet, text editor or AB to build my army and it adds up correctly. Yes, AB has a simpler click to add unit functionality and a very customisable output, but nothing that you can't do with a little work with another tool.

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain. As a TO, it made verifying lists for certain events so much easier. I still used it in combination with the codex (as intended) and if it threw up issues, then I checked against codex. As a player, I generally use a spreadsheet and codex anyway.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.? A standard of legible and typed/printed with the arithmetic correct would be nice. As it is, I can't count on my local fellow gamers to get the last one right so some form of tool to make it easier to check is always good.

[DarkLink]

The abbreviated format is slightly (slightly) better, but it's still crap.


: Honour Guard (6#, 470 pts)
. . 1 Librarian in Power Armour, 175 pts = (base cost 100) + Jump Pack 25 + Epistolary 50
. . 1 Honour Guard, 30 pts + Chapter Banner 30
. . . . 1 Sanguinary Novitiate, 23 pts
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)

I can't tell what's going on in this unit. Are there 6 Honor Guard and a Librarian? Are there 6 models total? I really can't tell. I literally had to pull out my own copy of the BA codex and look it up. And why are the Honor Guard and Librarian listed as the same unit under Honor Guard, when they are separate units and the Librarian is the one that unlocks the Honor Guard?

Why is the cost of every single possible thing listed? I don't need to know that, any of it. I just want to know the total cost of the unit, and because these two separate units are lumped together I can't even do that.

This is what this should look like:

Librarian, Jump Pack, Epistolary (175)

5 Honor Guard (295)
-Sanguinary Novitiate
-2x Power Fist/Storm Shield
-2x Meltagun/Storm Shield

That I can actually read. I can take one quick glance at it, and know everything that I could ever want to know about what's in the unit. If I need to know any more than that, like special rules or statlines, I can look at the codex. Anything more complex than what I have listed is too much.




Troops: Death Company (11#, 355 pts)
. . 1 Reclusiarch in Power Armour, 155 pts = (base cost 130) + Jump Pack 25
. . 1 Death Company, 0 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts

Again, WTF is up with this entry? Why are all 10 Death Company listed separately? Why is the Reclusiarch in the same unit entry? Aren't they separate units? And what's with the 1 Death Company, 0 pts? What's going on!?

It should look like this:


Rechlusiarch, Jump Pack (155pts)

10 Death Company (200pts)

That's it. That's everything. It's readable, I can actually tell what's going on with the unit, and I can do it at a glance.




So, yeah, I hate armybuilder. Someone should take a tech writing class and revise the armybuilder output so that it's actually readable.

[Defenestratus]

Your complaints are trivial and completely arbitrary based on personal preference.

The reason that those units are individually listed is because they can be individually configured. Every model can be different.

As for why the reclusiarch is included - is because I dragged him into the unit. He could appear separately if I wanted, its just the way that I put it since they all ride in the Storm Raven by itself.

Also the output relies heavily on the way that the data file is written - which the developers of AB cannot by contract control.

And I'll let Colen know that he should take a tech writing class. I'm sure he'll get a hoot out of that.

[Defenestratus]

I've cleaned up my roster for you since you're so nitpicky about things. I've also proven my point about the death company configuration and why your solution of "10 death company" would never work. Also you say that you don't want to see point totals. I do. I don't trust anyone, especially tournament players, so having point totals on the sheet is much better than not. Plus there's "model list" output if you don't care about points.

2000 Pts - Blood Angels Roster - Storm Ravens Swoop 2k

Total Roster Cost: 2275

HQ: Librarian in Power Armour (1#, 175 pts)
. . 1 Librarian in Power Armour, 175 pts = (base cost 100) + Jump Pack 25 + Epistolary 50

HQ: Reclusiarch in Power Armour (1#, 155 pts)
. . 1 Reclusiarch in Power Armour, 155 pts = (base cost 130) + Jump Pack 25

: Honour Guard (5#, 295 pts)
. . 1 Honour Guard, 30 pts + Chapter Banner 30
. . . . 1 Sanguinary Novitiate, 23 pts
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)

Troops: Assault Squad (10#, 240 pts)
. . 7 Assault Squad, 126 pts = 7 * 18
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Meltagun, 28 pts = (base cost 18 + Meltagun 10)
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Meltagun, 28 pts = (base cost 18 + Meltagun 10)
. . . . 1 Sergeant, 58 pts = (base cost 28) + Thunder Hammer x1 30

Troops: Assault Squad (10#, 225 pts)
. . 7 Assault Squad, 126 pts = 7 * 18
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Flamer, 23 pts = (base cost 18 + Flamer 5)
. . . . 1 Assault Marine with Flamer, 23 pts = (base cost 18 + Flamer 5)
. . . . 1 Sergeant, 53 pts = (base cost 28) + Power Fist x1 25

Troops: Death Company (10#, 480 pts)
. . 1 Death Company, 0 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 45 pts = (base cost 20 + Power Fist 25)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 55 pts = (base cost 20 + Hand Flamer 10 + Power Fist 25)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 65 pts = (base cost 20 + Infernus Pistol 15 + Thunder Hammer 30)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 60 pts = (base cost 20 + Plasma Pistol 15 + Power Fist 25)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 50 pts = (base cost 20 + Power Weapon 15 + Power Weapon 15)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts
. . . . 1 Death Company, 60 pts = (base cost 20 + Hand Flamer 10 + Thunder Hammer 30)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 45 pts = (base cost 20 + Power Fist 25)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 60 pts = (base cost 20 + Power Fist 25 + Power Weapon 15)
. . . . 1 Death Company, 20 pts

Troops: Death Company Dreadnought (1#, 135 pts)
. . 1 Death Company Dreadnought, 135 pts = (base cost 125 + Heavy Flamer 10)

<snip>

Validation Report:
c-1. File Version: 1.45 For Bug Reports/www.ab40k.org; b-1. Roster Options: Imperial Armour, Named or Special Characters; a-1. Scenario: Normal Mission
Unit 'Death Company': You have more special weapons than allowed.
Total points exceed maximum allowed roster size (max 2000).

Composition Report:
HQ: 2 (1 - 2)
Elite: 1 (0 - 3)
Troops: 4 (2 - 6)
Fast: 0 (0 - 3)
Heavy: 2 (0 - 3)

Created with Army Builder® - Try it for free at http://www.wolflair.com

[gwensdad]

To start this off right, I'd like to get opinions of those who have run/directly participated in 40k tournaments about Army Builder software. If you have a few minutes and wouldn't mind answering a couple questions, I'd appreciate it!

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?

6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?

Thanks for the imput everyone, I appreciate it.

-=- A bit of information to clarify the outside aspects of this questionairre-=-

1. Army builder is readily available in this situation, and doesn't need to be purchased. Similar to how Adepticon has theirs set up. the only difference being that it costs $2-5.00 to print lists (depending on if it is one, two or three lists), to reimburse for supplies.

1) participant
2) preferred
3) neutral, but it does beat hand written lists.
4) a little easier to see options I might have missed, plus lists IA options when allowed
5) I think at least "must be typed". Before Army Builder I used a spreadsheet that worked well.
6) There are some features that need more explaination, but I think some of that is the file creator's problem.

[Wolfshade]

Of course:

. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 1 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)

Could be

. . . . 2 Honour Guard, 68 pts = (base cost 23 + Power Fist x1 25 + Storm Shield x1 20)
. . . . 2 Honour Guard, 53 pts = (base cost 23 + Meltagun x1 10 + Storm Shield x1 20)

which would be better

[DarkLink]

That's exactly one of the points that I want to make.


Your complaints are trivial and completely arbitrary based on personal preference.

Only the points cost. The rest is purely about readability. With all the stats and wargear and everything getting in the way, the list becomes much more difficult to read.



The reason that those units are individually listed is because they can be individually configured. Every model can be different.

They can be, but what if they aren't? See below. List models with common wargear together, it makes it easier to figure out exactly what's in the squad.



As for why the reclusiarch is included - is because I dragged him into the unit. He could appear separately if I wanted, its just the way that I put it since they all ride in the Storm Raven by itself.

But why does army builder even put them in the same unit at all, ever? If I just glance over the list, I might just see Death Company and totally miss the Reclusiarch. Listing them separately is not only more accurate, technically, but easier to read.

Or is it part of the output based on the data file as you mention below?



Also the output relies heavily on the way that the data file is written - which the developers of AB cannot by contract control.

And I'll let Colen know that he should take a tech writing class. I'm sure he'll get a hoot out of that.

I'm sure. I don't want to sound insulting or anything with this, it's meant as constructive criticism, and if there are legal things preventing them from smoothing out some of the issues then I guess there's nothing that can be done. But the printout is still much harder to read than it needs to be.


I've also proven my point about the death company configuration and why your solution of "10 death company" would never work.

Look at my honor guard example. You list models by common wargear. Since there were 10 identical Death Company, you can just say 10 Death Company. If they all have different wargear, then go ahead and list them out individually like I did with the Honor Guard. But keep it as simple and clean as possible, to keep things readable:

Death Company (10#, 480 pts)
-2 Power Fist
-1 Power Fist/Hand Flamer
-1 Infernus Pistol/Thunder Hammer
-1 Plasma Pistol/Power Fist
-1 Power Weapon/Power Weapon
-2 Death Company
-1 Hand Flamer/Thunder Hammer
-1 Power Fist/Power Weapon

Your revised format is another slight improvement, but even if you do keep in the point values there are still some artifacts you can drop. For example, again, that redundant second line of Death Company, 0pts line that serves no purpose.



Also you say that you don't want to see point totals. I do.

So look at the codex. They did bring their codex, right?




Incidentally, the single most important thing I want to see out of any list is the highlights. I want to know what I will be facing, and I want to be able to see that as quickly and efficiently as possible. Oftentimes I gloss over wargear until later. I just want to know 'ok, he's got a Librarian, Terminators, a Land Raider, and 30 Tactical Marines in Rhinos'. Once we deploy, then I can worry about 'ok, the Librarian and Terminators are in the Land Raider, and the Tactical Marines all combat squaded with meltaguns in the Rhinos and lascannons hiding in cover'.

If the list can provide more information than that without getting in the way, then great, but frankly I don't think you really can do that very well at all, army builder or not. At best, you can get maybe a summary page and then a couple extra pages with the states that I can flip to but don't get in the way. And at the same time, you can just look at the codex and get everything you need.

[JMichael]

1) I run most of our LGS Tournaments.

2) I did once require AB lists (and had a laptop/printer on hand for those that wanted to enter their pencil list in).

3. AB or not, I wished more players showed up better prepared. If hand written...the point costs and wargear should be very clearly written out...especially for a tourney.

4. Much easier (did competition output). And mostly it made the players feel better about the lists being legit and added up correctly.

5. I do all of my lists in AB and will continue to do so. I would not have it required because I don't feel it's fair to require the players to spend $$ just to appease the T.O. Although if you at least provide a computer and printer at the store then it's okay imho.

6. I love it, and am very impressed with the ab40k.org group and their responses to bugs (yummy!).

[RedScorpionsGirl]

Aside from the petty squabble, I sincerely thank those who actually took the time to just answer the questions I asked. I really appreciate the feedback, and would love to hear more that would take the time to answer my questions.

To reiterate the message, as it seems to have deviated:

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?

2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?

6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?

Thanks for the imput everyone, I appreciate it.

-=- A bit of information to clarify the outside aspects of this questionairre-=-

1. Army builder is readily available in this situation, and doesn't need to be purchased. Similar to how Adepticon has theirs set up. the only difference being that it costs $2-5.00 to print lists (depending on if it is one, two or three lists), to reimburse for supplies.

[Gir]

They can be, but what if they aren't? See below. List models with common wargear together, it makes it easier to figure out exactly what's in the squad.

I just did it and got:

Troops: Death Company (10#, 200 pts)
. . 1 Death Company, 0 pts
. . . . 10 Death Company, 200 pts

Seems like user error to me.

[RedScorpionsGirl]

I just did it and got:

Troops: Death Company (10#, 200 pts)
. . 1 Death Company, 0 pts
. . . . 10 Death Company, 200 pts

Seems like user error to me.

Guys. I'd like to clearly point out the topic of this conversation is "Survey on the use of Army Builder for Tournaments, major and minor" not continuously squabbling over Army Builder Output.

Complaining about the different ways lists are output does absoutely nothing towards the questions I'd asked previously, and reiterated in an attempt to keep the conversation on topic.

Again, a huge thank you to those who have actually answered the questions I had asked about Army Builder, and took notice of the actual topic of the post.

Cheers

[Lightcavalier]

1. Both

2. Not required by me/ not mentioned by other TOs

3. I did not want people to have to pay to use something that they can do for themselves/ didnt think about it at the time

4. I went to one event where AB was required, and we went over on registration because half the people didnt have it. Standardised formatting is easier, but that can be established as a group SOP, instead of buying a programme.

5. My last store had a standard format, must be typed, must be laid out such and such a way in a word/excel style document. As a TO I dont care because im in a very small community now, so people catch each other before its a problem. As a player, I like to know what Im looking at...and AB doesnt always give me that.

6. Its a decent product, but I should not have to buy something above and beyond 40k products just to play 40k in a tournament. As well, it is very easy to abuse if you know your way around the data files (not to mention being fraught with errors)

As a TO, AB has not been of a high enough quality to completely replace veryfing things with the codex. Sufice it to say, I let my license expire over a year ago and never looked back. I do up my lists on excel, just copy out the items word for word from the codex (nothing complex). Easy for everyone to read.

[RedScorpionsGirl]

Lightcavalier, thank you for responding! I am researching whether or not to implement the requirement of Army Builder lists for the tournament I run, and whether or not it's a feasible idea.

[Maelstorm]

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?
.... Both
2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?
....Not Required

3. How did you feel about the response to #2?
....Didn't matter

4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.
....Much-much eaiser to check. I use AB for all of my 40k army builds.

5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?
....Yes, either AB or typed in a format. I cannot stand trying to read someones handwritten scribble excuse for a tournament list - it's just begging for errors.

6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?
....I enjoy using it. It allows me to see the progression of my tournament list from first trials to ready for prime time army build.

[Tepogue]

Just general answers.

Yes I've used army builder

I've been both a TO and participant. I never required it, but insisted on written lists turned in by all participants.

Only 2-3 out of 20ish tournaments required it.

Once you know the format its easy to read.

It always seems the guy with the army list on a used napkin from Dennies has an army thats both too big and constantly morphs over a game, the people with army builder seem to have correct armies and no moprhing mid game.

[david5th]

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?
Participant.
2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?
Not required.
3. How did you feel about the response to #2?
Not really that bothered.
4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.
Easier, it allows me to make changes and instantly see the effects it has on points.
5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?
As long as they dont look like they have been chewed and spat out i'm not that fussed.
6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?
I think it's a good product.

[L192837465]

Don't require it. If you're really that worried, ask for it a few days in advance and go over each list to verify it's legal. If you don't want to do that, then you'll have to trust your players and just require it to be typed.

[RedScorpionsGirl]

Ignoring the last response (as it wasn't really a response to the questions I asked, more of a opinionized statement), thank you to all who answered my little questionaire. I have been compiling answers, and still appreciate getting more if you feel up to taking a moment to answer.

===

As a reminder the questions I asked were:

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?


2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?


3. How did you feel about the response to #2?


4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.


5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?


6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?

============

[Lerra]

1. Typically a participant, but I've run small local tournaments and events (15-30 people)

2. Not required. Another local tournament tried requiring them, but only about a third of people actually brought AB lists with them, and the other 2/3rds of the participants ended up waiting in line to use a single computer. It took way too long to be practical. Most of those 2/3rds had never used AB before and had to stumble their way around the program, and many needed help to get their lists typed up in a timely manner. It just wasn't worth the extra hassle.

3. I'm glad AB isn't required. I like the freedom to use my software of choice and the formatting of choice. I haven't run into any problems with basic requirements like "lists must be typed and easy to read". I don't see a need to force the use of AB if there is a more-flexible alternative that works fine.

4. I typically find AB lists to be a pain in the rear because they often span multiple pages, and it's difficult to see the army comp at a glance. I do all of my army lists using Word and manage to get everything on one page, and imo, much easier to read than the typical AB list.

5. I think requiring a typed list is perfectly reasonable. Even if you don't own a printer, it's not that hard to swing by the public library and type something up in Word or Excel. I dislike requiring any particular software app, though. Not everyone is familiar with AB, and if a competing army-building software springs up, I would prefer if people would have the option to use either. Competition being healthy and good for the hobby and all that.

6. Watch out for cheating in army lists even if AB is used. Locally we had two guys using altered data with AB to tweak point values. They made it look like everything added up properly but they were actually a few hundred points over. If they had been more modest in their cheating we probably wouldn't have caught them . . .

[Duke]

...
As a reminder the questions I asked were:

1. Were you a T.O. or a participant?


2. Were Army Builder lists mandatory, preferred, or not required?


3. How did you feel about the response to #2?


4. Did you find that Army Builder lists made things easier, harder, or no change? Please explain.


5. Do you think there should a standard in tournaments for list submission? Army Builder, must be typed, no handwritten...etc. What works best for you as a player, or as a T.O.?


6. Anything in particular you'd like to vent about Army Builder? Regardless of good or bad, how well do you like it as an overall product?

============


1. Both, I am TO of Feast of Blades I also play in lots of other tournaments.

2. Feast prefers Army builder, as do most events I play in. We will also accept lists written in MS Word.

3. I like that it standardizes the lists.

4. Easier, you would be surprised how many people come with chicken scratch army lists.

5. Yes, I would love a standard format, but I don't think it will happen... unless the software is free, sadly.

6. I can't stand the output format. I have learned how to read the document but it takes a while to master and view quickly. I do like the special rukes and weapons synopsis at the end, it is probably more helpful that the AB army list itself. It needs to be on IPad. I heard that it is now available on Mac but I haven't looked. Mostly my issues are with the output. IF it were on iPad I would like to be able to make notes on units, mark them as dead/ half strength and such to help track KP and VP. It would be amazing if I could also "share," the doc with someone else using the AB app.

Chandler