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 [url]http://www.wolflair.com[/url]

[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