War Room FAQ, revised

[zreef]

You said yourself you find it frustrating, that frustration stems from the inability to use the function I have just highlighted which inferred you were having difficulty using the application, I apologise if I caused offence it was not intended as a jibe.

Fair enough, I see your point

[msteelers]

Ha! I did not know you could do that. But, I stand by my point, the UI is rubbish. Your implication that I find it "difficult to use" is not appreciated.

Rubbish? I'll go so far as to say that it's not an intuitive interface, as I struggled just like you do with quickly and easily adding and deleting units and finding out the quirks of the system. But once I learned the way I was supposed to do everything, the system became a breeze to use.

From what I gathered from your post, your problems with iBodger are that you didn't realize you had to highlight your warcaster when adding in models to their battlegroup, and that you missed the "More" button on the top right which displays all models regardless of point costs. iBodger does everything you claim it doesn't, you just didn't know how to do it.

[Thadrin]

The UI needs you to know how it works that is all.
You had a problem, there is a solution. This will be the case for Warroom too. Just as it has been a problem for pretty much every piece of software ever, past present and future.

The problem with this whole situation is this:
We had thing A.
Privateer said "We no longer want thing A to exist, because we are producing superficially similar thing B."
The public have been told that thing B does not in fact do the same things as thing A.
People are now wondering why thing A was stopped, when if anything it sounds like the perfect compliment to thing B.
This is especially true of people who want the things that thing A did and have zero interest in the features of thing B.

[zreef]

Rubbish? I'll go so far as to say that it's not an intuitive interface, as I struggled just like you do with quickly and easily adding and deleting units and finding out the quirks of the system. But once I learned the way I was supposed to do everything, the system became a breeze to use.

From what I gathered from your post, your problems with iBodger are that you didn't realize you had to highlight your warcaster when adding in models to their battlegroup, and that you missed the "More" button on the top right which displays all models regardless of point costs. iBodger does everything you claim it doesn't, you just didn't know how to do it.

Well indeed it does! I stand corrected, let the public humiliation begin!

Now if only there was a way to have the functionality of the "more" button as the default behavior ...

[zreef]

Rubbish? I'll go so far as to say that it's not an intuitive interface, as I struggled just like you do with quickly and easily adding and deleting units and finding out the quirks of the system. But once I learned the way I was supposed to do everything, the system became a breeze to use.

From what I gathered from your post, your problems with iBodger are that you didn't realize you had to highlight your warcaster when adding in models to their battlegroup, and that you missed the "More" button on the top right which displays all models regardless of point costs. iBodger does everything you claim it doesn't, you just didn't know how to do it.

Well indeed it does! I stand corrected, let the public humiliation begin!

Now if only there was a way to have the functionality of the "more" button as the default behavior ...

[Geekly]

iBodger is the most-used app on my iPhone. I use it to build lists and manage my model collection. Once new models are released, my most-used app will be useless. I have PP to thank for that. War Room will be a fantastic app for browsing cards offline and during games, but it is not a replacement for iBodger. No matter how you look at it, PP has taken something incredibly valuable from the player community (a functional list-building app) and is not replacing it with something comparable.

[quindraco]

iBodger is the most-used app on my iPhone. I use it to build lists and manage my model collection. Once new models are released, my most-used app will be useless. I have PP to thank for that. War Room will be a fantastic app for browsing cards offline and during games, but it is not a replacement for iBodger. No matter how you look at it, PP has taken something incredibly valuable from the player community (a functional list-building app) and is not replacing it with something comparable.

iBodger is actually officially out of date right now - the latest NQ had a new pButcher tier which isn't in iBodger and never will be, and in terms of models it hasn't got BDIFP and never will. I'm not sure it makes the app 'useless' per se, but you should know that we're already leaving behind the time when it had 100% of what you needed.

[Sthiel]

Ha! I did not know you could do that. But, I stand by my point, the UI is rubbish. Your implication that I find it "difficult to use" is not appreciated.

How about you respect the effort of the people who built it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say you found the interface counter-intuitive. Then get your money back...Oh yah, they did all that work and gave it to you for free.

[whicken]

iBodger has frustrated me to no end. Maybe im "too new" or just create my lists in a different way, but having to go back and delete a caster just because I added a unit and then decided to add another warbeast is infuriating.

Each app will make design decisions based around user experience. This is one of the reasons it's nice to have competition - different apps go different routes, which helps the whole ecosystem innovate. Some people prefer Forward Kommander, some prefer iBodger. This isn't a slam on either app, just an indication that users may have different preferences.

I'm not knocking your issues, and I'm not offended - I occasionally get these questions from new users. iBodger is optimized for the user flow of an experienced user, which can make getting up to speed difficult. If you want to add warjacks to a caster after the initial add (or a 'jack marshall, or UA/WA to a unit), just tap the model you want to add it to, and then press the + button. (On Android, you can use the context menu and there's an "Add To" button). If you want to go over the points total, there's a "More" button on the list of models that shows all the other options, with an indicator of which are over the total. This can be used to add an alternate model before you delete the other one - or occasionally it's needed to handle some edge cases in theme forces where a bonus is contextual and therefore not applied until after the model is in context. I'm not sure what you find painful about turning off theme forces - in the old version, there's a button to push to turn it off (and it will auto remove any illegal models if you want). In the newest one, just tap the theme force name and select none.

Edit: Just to be super clear, it's a legitimate criticism that iBodger can be difficult to learn, and not everyone agrees with the design decisions there. In my book, the issue is more about closed systems vs an open community and not "War Room vs. iBodger".

Here's my "outside the box" idea on how to use the new features - you can make an army list, call it "My Collection", and add all your models to it. Ta dah - instant collection manager.

[Jake the Dog]

What I keep finding hilariously sad is the sense of entitlement some people have because of iBodger. Crude truth is, you are owed nothing.

[quindraco]

What I keep finding hilariously sad is the sense of entitlement some people have because of iBodger. Crude truth is, you are owed nothing.

You realise it's completely different a) demanding a list builder be provided, and b) being upset when a list builder is taken from you, right?

[ingusmat]

Chris - can you (and maybe you already have, or have been asked not to) detail exactly what restrictions PP asked of you? I see a lot of people getting upset about you not being able to maintain ibodger, but I haven't seen a post where it was made clear. Are you not going to be able to update it at all?

I'm looking forward to War Room, but I have found iBodger an invaluable tool since the first released version. So, if it's true that you won't be maintaining it after War Room's release, that will make me sad, as I'd like to use both.

I was also in the process of building a Forward Kommander competitor in rails with a more social aspect to it. I wonder if I'll still be able to do that...

[EvilJosh]

What I keep finding hilariously sad is the sense of entitlement some people have because of iBodger. Crude truth is, you are owed nothing.

Of course we're owed nothing. But neither is PP. The only thing that PP is owed at this point in my opinion is trust that they will make good rule sets, good models, and good fluff. And that's because they earned that trust.

At the moment they aren't earning that same trust in their digital formats. Nor do I owe them anything requiring me to purchase it as an act of good faith for future updates. It's simple, at the moment, I don't see a reason to purchase this. If you want me to see a reason to purchase this item, what needs to happen has already been stated.

[MadJack]

Except you can apply that argument to your comment ... you cant create a list with just your brain, fingers, and cards? Do you not see the huge benefit of not having to lug a bunch of cards around and getting to see your opponents cards/stats/boxes during game without having to continually ask?

Um, how? My argument is that the primary thing I want in an app is a reliable list creator. How can you apply that argument to my comment? I suggest you re-read what I wrote, because what you just said makes no sense. Maybe for some people the primary thing they want in an app is the cards. I'm not one of those people. To me that was the added pretty cool feature, but not the main thing I wanted. Because this app doesn't have the main feature I wanted in it, I'm very unlikely to pay anything for it.

[Jake the Dog]

You realise it's completely different a) demanding a list builder be provided, and b) being upset when a list builder is taken from you, right?

Different yes, but both are born from the same seed of false entitlement. Said List builder only existed because they allowed it in the first place. You can be upset, sure. But many here feel like PP owes them for a list builder. PP doesn't owe players anything of that sort. Just because iBodger existed doesn't mean PP should do a list builder when they exercise their IP rights to take iBodger down.

[ryanbo724]

*stomps feet* *holds breath* "BUT I WANT IT!!!!!"

I swear its like I am dealing with my 3 year old sometimes.....

[ScottEBJJ]

Different yes, but both are born from the same seed of false entitlement. Said List builder only existed because they allowed it in the first place. You can be upset, sure. But many here feel like PP owes them for a list builder. PP doesn't owe players anything of that sort. Just because iBodger existed doesn't mean PP should do a list builder when they exercise their IP rights to take iBodger down.

Except they now they are trying to get me to buy something, How is it a sense of entitlement to say, if PP wants us to spend money they need their product to have certain functionality?

Yes, if PP wants my $60 then I want a list builder. It's not entitlement it's consumer discretion.

[MadJack]

Except they now they are trying to get me to buy something, How is it a sense of entitlement to say, if PP wants us to spend money they need their product to have certain functionality?

Yes, if PP wants my $60 then I want a list builder. It's not entitlement it's consumer discretion.

This. No sense of entitlement here, I just don't believe that War Room does enough of what I want it to do in order to justify spending any money on it, so unless I'm absolutely blown away by the free download, I won't be spending my money on it as I had originally planned. I'll use iBodger for as long as I reasonably can, then go back to pen and paper.

[quindraco]

Different yes, but both are born from the same seed of false entitlement. Said List builder only existed because they allowed it in the first place. You can be upset, sure. But many here feel like PP owes them for a list builder. PP doesn't owe players anything of that sort. Just because iBodger existed doesn't mean PP should do a list builder when they exercise their IP rights to take iBodger down.

They did not exercise their IP rights, sir. They hold no authority to take iBodger down. They asked whicken politely, and he politely acquiesced. PP *does* owe us a list builder, because they took one from us. If they'd left iBodger alone, there would be no sore feelings. If they'd made a real list builder and sold it to us, there would still be sore feelings, but not nearly as much.

[Lighten]

Except they now they are trying to get me to buy something, How is it a sense of entitlement to say, if PP wants us to spend money they need their product to have certain functionality?

You buy it, or you don't. Some people will buy War Room right away because they want what it does. Assuming they leave iBodger unsupported, some more people will eventually buy War Room decks because they want a tool to create and save lists electronically, and iBodger will eventually be too out of date. War Room isn't an app designed for efficient list creation, but it will create lists.

Whether losing out on customer goodwill from people who wanted what iBodger did (and/or prefer free) is worth the extra sales of war room as iBodger gets too out of date is for some PP financial guy to figure out; presumably they've done that. Maybe they're rethinking it based on complaints, or maybe not.

[PPS_Simon]

This conversation is veering perilously close to personal attacks and off topic discussion.

[Blighted Tyrant]

Different yes, but both are born from the same seed of false entitlement. Said List builder only existed because they allowed it in the first place. You can be upset, sure. But many here feel like PP owes them for a list builder. PP doesn't owe players anything of that sort. Just because iBodger existed doesn't mean PP should do a list builder when they exercise their IP rights to take iBodger down.

Do you by any chance wear an expensive suit and work at GW HQ? Because that right there is exactly what PP shouldn't be thinking.

iBodger was a fan made application that PP gave permission to go ahead, it set the bar and made us all feel warm and fuzzy that PP didn't go running to the lawyers but now its been taken away which they can do it is within their rights as owners of the IP but what is has done is put some of us out in the cold. They have asked for it to be stopped whilst hiding a Cease and Desist under the table just incase, revealed their "list builder" then gone on to tell us its actually more of a Card Manager and the awesome stuff we loved about iBodger is gone.

That's not to say one day it wont be added in, but in my opinion it's not good it enough. It's not the excellent standard I've come to love from PP, I hope they have some one working very hard on a "list builder" but until I see one, that can verify my theme lists, authenticate my Tournament lists without reams and reams of printed material that makes it more complicated and more time hungry than actually write the list out - I will remain sat out in the cold with a very bad feeling that another Evil Empire may well just be rising.

[msteelers]

What I keep finding hilariously sad is the sense of entitlement some people have because of iBodger. Crude truth is, you are owed nothing.

Allow me to introduce you to my friend. His name is Capitalism.

Nobody feels entitled to anything except for the right to not spend our money on a product we don't want.

[Jake the Dog]

They did not exercise their IP rights, sir. They hold no authority to take iBodger down. They asked whicken politely, and he politely acquiesced. PP *does* owe us a list builder, because they took one from us. If they'd left iBodger alone, there would be no sore feelings. If they'd made a real list builder and sold it to us, there would still be sore feelings, but not nearly as much.

You just proved my point right there. False entitlement.

Except they now they are trying to get me to buy something, How is it a sense of entitlement to say, if PP wants us to spend money they need their product to have certain functionality?

Yes, if PP wants my $60 then I want a list builder. It's not entitlement it's consumer discretion.

Are they holding a gun at you head making you buy it? No. They aren't making buy anything. They are making a product, if you don't like itt, don't buy it.

Allow me to introduce you to my friend. His name is Capitalism.

Nobody feels entitled to anything except for the right to not spend our money on a product we don't want.

Capitalism has nothing to do with my original point. Some people here feel they are owed iBodger or an equivalent to it. Fact is they aren't owed that, iBodger existed only because and until they allowed it. That is the false entitlement. Whether they wish to spend money or not (which is a right, I won't deny) is an entirely different matter.

[PG_strangedane]

Why are people calling this a bad list creator?! It shows the cost of models, it let's you know if you have have gone over the FA? What do you feel is missing SO badly?

[ingusmat]

I wonder that too -- everything about it sounds about right to me, and we haven't even SEEN it yet.

[Geekly]

I'm going to buy the cards and use War Room for what it is - a card and list browser. At the same time, I'm going scratch my head and wonder why they took away an extremely useful list builder. The question here is "why eliminate iBodger when it doesn't compete directly with War Room?" They do two different things, and many folks, myself included, would use both to the exclusion of neither.

[ScottEBJJ]

You just proved my point right there. False entitlement.



Are they holding a gun at you head making you buy it? No. They aren't making buy anything.

I didn't say they are making me buy anything. I literally said they are trying to get me to buy something. It's right there in what you quoted. PP would like me to spend $60 dollars on Warroom. I will not spend $60 on something that doesn't have what I feel is a core feature to the product. I do not get how I could be anymore clear with what I'm saying. I'm sorry is it false entitlement to choose how I spend my money?

[Jake the Dog]

This conversation is veering perilously close to personal attacks and off topic discussion.

I didn't see this post until now. Sorry for starting the snowball that has escalated to what is being discussed now. I'm just uncomfortable on how some feel entitled to something they don't have a right to and felt the need to raise my voice in dissent.

I'll step out now.

[AJ the Ronin]

Why are people calling this a bad list creator?! It shows the cost of models, it let's you know if you have have gone over the FA? What do you feel is missing SO badly?

Theme lists. It will have it but not the way people want it.

Thing is PP is calling it a list creator when it really isn't. Is more like a card management, in-game support, list collector thing.

That's not bad. It will have most of the rules (I say most since I not sure I can reference how a charge works for example). It validate the basic list creation rules. It includes the info of theme list. Its does, all said and done a lot.

Yet not only you have to pay for the full app but PP decided to ask the actual list creators to stop updating.

That, is the weirdest decision ever. Not only is their product completely different I would say, is better (I mean full card rules on your mobile device!). Is like they, before they even started, had no faith in their product.
.

Edit: it just dawn on me, perhaps the company codding the app, as part of the contract ask PP not only go drop support to other apps but to make sure that no one use the PP brands and compete with the software.

[Sinsation]

Why are people calling this a bad list creator?! It shows the cost of models, it let's you know if you have have gone over the FA? What do you feel is missing SO badly?

The ability to print out damage grids and/or statlines quickly and easily, so that you don't have to switch between cards on an interface designed to show only one thing at a time. If my opponent doesn't have war room, there is a huge interoperability issue there (I think that's the proper term).

Ibodger and forward kommander both for instance, are list builders but not card replacements. Everything I've seen so far, and if PP testers have seen otherwise, feel free to correct me, but everything I've seen indicates that for the player who doesn't use War Room who is against someone who does, they are at a distinct disadvantage, where the system will make things that much harder for the player with physical cards.

[MadJack]

I'm just uncomfortable on how some feel entitled to something they don't have a right to and felt the need to raise my voice in dissent.

Personally I'm uncomfortable with how some feel that it's a good idea to keep attributing the dissatisfaction to a sense of entitlement, even when people are saying over and over that they simply no longer feel that it's a good value for the money. Voting with your wallet is far from a sense of entitlement. It's what capitalism is based on, and it's what I'll be doing. I would have been a lot happier if PP had made War Room into an actual list builder, because that's what I want in an app, and I'd be a lot happier voting for War Room with my wallet. Since they didn't, I'll be voting against it with my wallet.

[Thadrin]

Edit: it just dawn on me, perhaps the company codding the app, as part of the contract ask PP not only go drop support to other apps but to make sure that no one use the PP brands and compete with the software.

Which sounds awfully like similar actions of a company from Nottingham, England who also make toy soldiers....if that doesn't set the alarm bells clanging then there is something VERY wrong.

As I and others have said, the more we hear the less I see a clash between iBodger and Warroom.

[jmsetzer]

... Everything I've seen so far, and if PP testers have seen otherwise, feel free to correct me, but everything I've seen indicates that for the player who doesn't use War Room who is against someone who does, they are at a distinct disadvantage, where the system will make things that much harder for the player with physical cards.

How do you figure that War Room will make things harder for a player with physical cards? He has the cards, he uses the cards, just like he always has. Nothing about the other player using War Room cards on his device changes anything for the player using the physical cards. What am I missing Sinsation?

[PG_strangedane]

Ibodger and forward kommander both for instance, are list builders but not card replacements. Everything I've seen so far, and if PP testers have seen otherwise, feel free to correct me, but everything I've seen indicates that for the player who doesn't use War Room who is against someone who does, they are at a distinct disadvantage, where the system will make things that much harder for the player with physical cards.

If player A has War Room and he/she plays against player B who does not have War Room, the only thing that's different, is that player A has the list on his device, whereas player B has it written on paper? Player A CAN mark damage on his phone/tablet, but would then have to hand over said device, every time the opponent would like to see how much damage/what rules model X has.

I will get the big package - 60$ is cheap to get EVERY card and therefor knowledge about comboes etc I think) but I will still bring my cards to EVERY game, I won't hand over my phone exept to show the list, thus avoiding stupid accidents to my phone

[Sinsation]

Ever play a game against someone who texts, or has to make a phone call? Now you can't see any of their cards. Want to see two cards at once? No go. How about not the cards, but damage grids? Nope. Their phone freezes, needs a reboot, then goes into odin mode? Your game is on hold now. Ever seen someone drop a card when they hand it across to their opponent? That card is now $200. Someone gets hit in the arm while looking at a card, drops the phone and it breaks. Eww.

It's about a multi-use device that I can pretty much guarantee will be used for something else in a tournament, susceptible to viruses, battery loss, and hardware/software glitches and issues. I've played games using just the field test docs on vassal, doing it so that only one card is viewable at a time, and that was a significant impairment to playing. Forcing me to play with restrictions on my ability to view opponent's information as well as put myself at risk of damaging a device worth several hundred dollars by making this tourney legal is not something I'll look forward to. It's a huge bottleneck of information. Now the other player with War Room could print out stat cards, and damage grids, by making their own word doc and doing so. They don't have to though.

I've played and tested that kind of single-view game many times on vassal. It sucks. I just see no consideration of the non-user in the design, to where some of these features can be a major hindrance. Some reassurance would be very, very welcome.

[Trollz]

Let's all just get along and pit our differences against one another in a nice game of warmahordes.

[PG_MrTemplar]

Think i will just bring my cards so my opponent can look at them if *he wants to, then i can use war room all to myself.
Or share my list if my opponent has war room.

[Trygle]

Yeah, If I use this I would try and use it one a cheaper device.

My phone is too important to risk on a game of Warmahordes, for something that is superfluous and really adds little to the game.

[MadJack]

OK, so I’ve been thinking about it, and this is how I would structure a list builder application in order to allow all sorts of crazy theme lists in the future.

Create a table for the types of data elements that can be added to an army (warcasters, warlocks, warjacks, warbeasts, solos, unit attachments etc). Each entry in this table contains the following values:
Name; Attached to; Warjack/Warbeast points eligible (y/n)
Example entries in this table would be:
Warcaster; null; n
Warjack; Warcaster,Jack Marshal; y
Warbeast; Warlock; y
Solo; null; n

Create a table for the specific data elements that can be added to an army (Commander Stryker, Defender, Storm Blade Storm Gunner, etc). Each entry in this table contains the following values:
Name; Warjack/Warbeast points; Field Allowance; Points cost variable (y/n); Points cost (if previous field is n, valid entries are a single number, if previous field is y, valid entries are presented as a comma-separated list); Faction; Allies (y/n); Mercenaries/Minions (y/n); Will work for (if previous field is n, no entry required, if y, comma-separated list); May attach to (left blank if model follows basic rules of model type, if basic rules for model type are to be over-written then valid entries are the name of a model type, or a comma-separated list of names of specific models); Allowed factions to attach to (left blank if model may not attach, otherwise comma-separated list); Jack marshal (y/n); Card to reference (valid entries are names of the data elements for the cards – this field tells the application where to go when somebody uses the UI to pull up the card from the list builder)
Example entries in this table would be:
Commander Stryker; 6; C; n; 0; Cygnar; n; n; blank; blank; blank; n; Commander Stryker’s Card
Defender; 0; U; n; 9; Cygnar; n; n; blank; blank; Cygnar; n; Defender’s Card
Storm Blade Storm Gunner; 0; 2; y; 1,2,3; Cygnar; n; n; blank; Storm Blade Infantry; Cygnar; n; Storm Blade Storm Gunner’s Card

Create a table for the army type that a user would select in order to start building a list (Cygnar, Charge of the Storm Brigade tier 2, etc – how they get to choose this army type is up to the UI, this table just defines how that army type behaves). Each entry in this table contains:
Name; Validation by faction (y/n – if y, then the only validation done will be if the models chosen fit within the points chosen by the user, and if the models chosen are a part of the faction, or mercenaries/minions who will work for the faction); Allowed models (left blank if previous entry is y, otherwise choose each model allowed by that army type – each model chosen returns each of the values from that model’s entry in the previous table, allowing any of them to be overwritten for the purposes of the army type if desired); Required models (left blank if Validation by faction is y, otherwise choose each model required and min/max numbers of that model required); Bonus models (left blank if Validation by faction is y, or no bonus models are granted by the army, otherwise choose each bonus model granted for free, and the number granted)
Example entries in this table would be:
Cygnar; y; blank; blank; blank
Charge of the Storm Brigade tier 2; n; each allowed model would be chosen here, returning the values for that model and allowing any changes required to points cost, FA, etc; each required model would be chosen here, along with the minimum and/or maximum of that model required; any bonus models granted are chosen here, along with the number granted

Anyway, I’m not a programmer or anything, but off the top of my head that’s the way I’d do it. There may be a few things that would be better done differently, and if somebody took the time to really think it through I’m sure they could be identified, but in general I think that would be a pretty flexible structure that would easily allow for any possible theme forces with any wild and crazy allowances/restrictions/bonuses to be created in the future.