Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

tokek

Members
  • Content count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Lord Celestant

About tokek

  • Rank
    Judicator
  1. Abilities used outside battlefield

    As I said the distinction is perfectly clear from the question and answer format of the FAQ and the context of what they said - you cannot affect other units when off table. That is all it says. Trying to construe it as some much bigger thing than being the direct answer to a direct question is taking it out of context. I have no interest in what anyone says on Twitter - I avoid Twitter. What you have "dealt with" on Twitter or some other social media or down the pub with your mates is not part of this discussion until you post it in this discussion. Or just ask GW. Has anybody posted it up on their Facebook page as a question to be referred for the next FAQ?
  2. Abilities used outside battlefield

    I think your mistake is to try to take it out of context by reading the answer alone. A FAQ is typically meant to be read as both a question and an answer and that would be the normally correct way to read and understand this format of writing. If you take it out of context you can view this as a general restriction on abilities working while the model/unit is not on the table. As you have identified this would make one of the centerpiece models of the poster-boy faction literally unplayable. As I recall from many years ago we can logically exclude a hypothesis by reductio ad absurdam - which I think we have done here as there is no way GW intend to make one of their prize models unplayable. That interpretation creates an absurd outcome and hence must not be the correct interpretation. From the context there is no other subdivision or logic splitting we are entitled to apply to this statement other than "does this affect other units". So if the ability would affect a unit other than the one that is off the table then it does not apply as per the FAQ. If it applies only to the off-table unit, typically by putting some or all of that warscroll on the table, then there is no reason for it not to apply. Any consideration of active, passive etc has no support from the context so really we have no reason to think that they are relevant.
  3. Almost anything can be made into some sort of competitive event if you really insist; shin-kicking, bog snorkeling and chasing a cheese down a hill are all competitive events within reach of where I live. Arguably these are all more legitimate and worthy competitive endeavors than AOS or 40K, although less physically pleasant and more dangerous. I sometimes quite like the intellectual challenge of competitive GW games in my own way (try to beat the latest Netlist with something they will never have seen before) but after a brief (and occasionally successful) Tournament career I have concluded I like competitive games a lot more than I like some of the competitive gamers. I really do have sympathy for players stuck in a local scene that is not to their liking and where some people feel entitled to belittle and denigrate anyone who does not choose to play that way.
  4. Open Play Cards Coming

    There is no fix for people being like that, unfortunately. I think if the cards are not played at random and a player gets outplayed with the cards and complains then it will be obvious to most onlookers that they are just a bad loser. Choosing which cards to play would be part of the skill element of a tournament in that format. Anticipating which cards might be played would be a legitimate part of the skill of list building - building a list that could not handle certain cards because "it is efficient" is just bad list building for that tournament format.
  5. Open Play Cards Coming

    List building as we know it is also against a fixed and known set of missions. Having used the 40K version of these cards I think there is a really neat tournament format hiding in there that would turn some of these assumptions on their head. You might for example hand out 3 objective cards and 3 twist cards to each player at the start of the day. They then see who they are playing against and for each game choose to play one of each type of card - once used they may no longer be used in the event. Every game has 2 objectives and 2 twists Win 2-0, major victory Win 1-0, minor victory 1-1 or 0-0 is a draw, use kill points as tie-breaker for marginal victory. The thing is that the combinations and the ability of each player to shape the scenario against one-dimensional lists really changes the value of units in the game. There is nothing random going on here yet the number and variety of possible scenarios that a list would have to be tailored against is vastly greater - in reality I think too many to manage so players would need to change to an approach that avoided some of the current over-tuning of lists[1] which would be vulnerable to unfavourable scenario builds. [1] for example any list which relies heavily on getting 6+'s in shooting multiplying up their damage output. A twist which applies negatives to shooting leaves such a list with a serious problem and the player probably wishing they had not put all their points into this particular gimmick.
  6. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone in his position but i think there is a fundamental error in believing that more better rules will stop jerks acting like jerks. It is at least as true that those jerks feel absolved of all social responsibility once you give them a supposed balancing systems (points) which they will then abuse to the max. As to the suggested GHB change I do think that really big units have been under-performing and that outside of Kunnin' Rukk are not competitive. So some sort of fix to make big units a bit more competitive on the table seems like a reasonable step, they had many ways they could have done this and I am not going to complain about the one they chose sight unseen.
  7. kharadron Thunderers and you

    If I was going to run a squad of these guys with my Seraphon I would be really tempted to go with the Fumigator or Decksweeper precisely because of the random shots. It is a single dice roll for the unit - which is incredibly economical use of both the re-rolls a Starseer generates and of the +1 from his Curse of Fates spell. I don't have the wording to hand, does the once per game re-roll for Barak-thryng work with this? Otherwise it is too swingy - could be devastating, could be meh.
  8. You might want to explain that to a Bastilodon
  9. Let's chat Kharadron Overlords

    All I have heard is that there was some move towards making this part of the WYSIWYG element of soft scores - if a tome specifies a colour scheme for the rules you are taking then you should use those colours if you want to get maximum soft score points. I see no harm in that. Having seen what happens in 40K I would actually quite like to see this on a rules pack for an AOS event.
  10. Let's chat Kharadron Overlords

    Each of them is a separate rule, can't immediately see why not. Basic 4+ save (3+ if you can manage to park your enormous boat in terrain) Doughty Champion Superlative Sailors You are never going to get all 3 (mortal wounds bypass the 4+) but all the same you get multi-layered saves against anything. Which is very tanky.
  11. Let's chat Kharadron Overlords

    Agreed. I think if you take a Frigate full of Cannon Thunderers you are really looking to make your opponent castle up against the threat and then need to build the rest of your list to take advantage of the fact that many opponents will do exactly that. If your opponent does as you want you can then just keep the frigate off the table as a constant threat in case they try to break out - it should be worth keeping a few hundred points of models off the table for a while if that gives you a big positional advantage in return.
  12. Let's chat Kharadron Overlords

    I think you would be better off making your Ironclad your general and taking Doughty Champion. If Barak Ziflin that gives you a 4+ save, an additional 5+ against wounds/mortal wounds and then finally a 6+ against mortal wounds. Pretty tanky. Feels quite appropriate for Barak Ziflin - the flagship being the centre of their force. [edit] As ably pointed out by yarrickson the Ironclad does not get Doughty Champion because KO allegiance works differently to Order in this regard.
  13. It will struggle with any list that you really need mortal wounds to hurt. KO have very little access to mortal wounds, if rend does not get the job done I am not sure what else they can do.
  14. Also Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SouthCoastGT/?fref=ts
  15. It was on the stream, at that distance it looked OK. Not the most stunning army there but up to an acceptable standard. I would guess Alex is 100% happy coming first on the tables and being nowhere near any of the many awards for painting. Similarly I would hope the great painters were in the running for those prizes and were probably not that bothered about winning the games on the table. I'm sure Warhammer TV wish every army they showed was a stunner and would inspire people into the hobby but not everyone has those stunning skills.
×