Rintrah56
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Rintrah56
-
-
On 9/25/2018 at 5:08 PM, Gash Bauer said:
I might be a bit out of the loop regarding announcements to rules changes, but today's WC article on the old 8 warbands just stated this in the Sepulchral Guard section.
In practice, this means that when you bring back a Sepulchral Guard fighter from the dead, they have no tokens – meaning they’re free to act again as you wish.
I think this is a great change for not only them but the skaven too.
Sorry if I’m being thick, but can anyone point me to the actual rule saying you don’t keep your tokens if brought back from being out of action? I can’t see it saying that anywhere in the new rulebook.
Thanks!
-
They gave it brief mention in the latest Community article.... it’s on the main Warhammer Underworlds homepage - scroll right down to the bottom for the rules PDF.
Don’t think there’s anything actually new in it, but it includes basic things like the revised roll-off system, the revised objective token setup wording etc. Could be printed out or just referred to via iPad or whatever.
Also think it might be the first time the rulebook has been made available to all online? Could be imagining that though.
-
1
-
-
Really pleased to see not just the new FAQ, but the updated rulebook PDF too. Makes for less cross-referencing during games which is always a good thing for me.
-
Played a couple of games against Sepulchral Guard today.
First game seemed like it was going to be a SG victory but then Fjul got upgraded to have +2 movement. He was also inspired, meaning 5 movement - stormed through the middle of the board to take out the Warden, leaving SG unable to pull off a 3rd turn combo. Came out of nowhere and totally changed the game - win for Chosen Axes.
Second game, Warden was guarding against that happening again. This time, Chosen Axes used the ploy that lets you push a fighter 3 hexes as long as they end on an objective...which there just happened to be one of right next to Warden. Another out of nowhere surge across the board...but this time fluffed attacks and the Warden took him out in response. Game ended in a draw.
Another game later if we get time...
-
1
-
-
Just been to my local (UK based) GW store to pick up the new warbands only to find they weren’t being stocked in store - mail order only. Massive sad face.
Fortunately I found a FLGS nearby that had them - weekend saved from ruin!
-
6 hours ago, Sleboda said:
This may seem like a weird one, but it's more complicated than it seems on the surface:
When does an Attack action end?
Likewise an Activation, which isn’t necessarily the same time.
One of the FAQ:
Q: When a fighter makes an action as part of an activation, and the end of that action is the end of the activation (e.g. if the fighter simply makes a Move action), could the players play both a Reaction that is triggered after an action and a Reaction that is triggered after an activation?
A: No. The action and the activation end simultaneously, so only one Reaction can be played. That Reaction could be triggered either by the action or the activation.but that’s not very helpful as it’s specifically referring to situations where the end of the action is also the end of the activation, which is frustratingly short of being a definitive statement that the two always end at the same time.
Biggest thing they could do to help this game IMO is a proper time/order of resolution chart - the one in the rule book isn’t detailed enough to handle the different scenarios arising.
-
That was exactly what I thought - and still do to be honest...the thing that threw me was that the section of the FAQ in question is an errata amending the wording of the ‘outcome of combat’ section of the rules. So the implication/suggestion they were raising, I think, was that it only refers to times when a fighter sustains damage equal to or greater than their wounds characteristic as a result of combat. Which would exclude a whole host of other (non-combat) situations where damage can cause a fighter to be taken out of action.
Doesn’t help that the glossary also refers explicitly to fighters taking opposing fighters out of action...
I’m still inclined to stick with the POV of any time taken out of action = glory point (and agree that Expendable is problematic here), but just couldn’t find anything concrete to back that feeling up.
-
4 minutes ago, Requizen said:
Well at least they are making an effort to FAQ it somewhat regularly. If people keep hitting their inbox, they'll FAQ things. Maybe not as often as we might like, but it's something.
Yep that is true and very much welcomed. In fairness it’s probably a small team reviewing with a lot of questions coming in.
Another thing I’m wondering is if I’ve been playing glory points wrong all along - I think you were watching the stream the other night when that came up (about it needing to be your fighters that take an opponent out of action to get the glory)?
I was absolutely adamant at the time that you get glory anytime an enemy fighter gets taken out of action, even if not directly by your fighters in combat, but having re-read the rules and FAQ now I’m questioning whether that’s right...
-
I do love this game (really I do), but the little niggles in the rules here and there are frustrating. But I guess that’s the same for many, many games on the market. I think I just need to chill out and enjoy it (knowing I’ll probably never play competitively) ?
-
A related question then - do you folks not roll defence dice for Stormcast (to see whether they become inspired) if the attack roll has no successes?
-
Piercing Stare looks interesting to me...
-
On 30/01/2018 at 4:23 PM, Biboune said:6 hours ago, Sleboda said:
This is the overall issue with Objective-holding strategies already - you work hard to position your models to achieve them, setting up multiple triggers, and then bam, with no planning or effort it gets yanked. Earthquake just cements the death of this style of play, especially at tournaments.
Which means less focus on ‘hold objective’ cards, which then means less use of Earthquake, which then means more use of ‘hold objective’ cards, and so on...
All of which is, for me, the beauty of the balance in the game. And which sets it apart from other systems where, it seems to me, there is often a ‘thing’ to beat, and sometimes it’s just very difficult to beat full stop no matter what you do. Rather than being a true self-regulating balance.
Still need to play more before I can make any proper conclusions about balance, but I have no problem at all with Earthquake or anything else at this stage. All feels to me like it has clearly been built into the design from day one (with a staggered release) rather than new design on top of previous design...
-
1
-
-
Interesting one. On balance I’d take a different view - I’d say you can do heroic stride. The rule book is clear in stating that players make activations but fighters take actions. So the concept of whether the activation is the warden’s or the champion’s is a red herring to me - it’s not either of them doing the activation, it’s the player controlling them.
The wording on the card is unhelpful in that it refers to the fighter ending their activation, which as I say, isn’t possible because fighters don’t make activations in the first place. Ho-hum.
Hmmm... If the focus of the card is meant to be the end of an activation then in theory that would mean enemy fighters already within 2 hexes could trigger this, even if those particular fighters didn’t make an action that turn...that would make the card more powerful...
...whereas if the focus of the card is the end of an action by a specific fighter, then only that specific fighter ending their action within 2 would trigger it. That narrows the scope of the card’s effect...
A rules errata amending the wording to either of the below should sort it (choose which one depending on what the card is intended to do):
1) after an enemy fighter ends their action within two hexes of this fighter, you can push this fighter one hex (this is how I’d play it right now)
2) at the end of an opponent’s activation, if there are any enemy fighters within two hexes of this fighter, you can push this fighter one hex
I assume it’s the former that’s intended as the card seems too powerful if it’s the latter. Plus the first one just requires one word to be amended, and it’s probably just that one word (‘activation’) being used in place of ‘action’ by mistake in the drafting that’s caused the problem.
-
1
-
-
EDIT: Deleted - sorry, misread your post, my bad
-
A Claim Retaken = score this in an end phase if a friendly fighter holds an objective that an enemy fighter held at the beginning of the preceding action phase.
Edited to correct typo.
-
2
-
-
As an action, he can return one out of action [edit: friendly!] fighter (other than Krrk) to the board. Set them up on any starting hex (so including enemy territory) with wound tokens removed.
-
Love the way one of the skaven fighters is called ‘Krrk’ - great name
-
On 02/01/2018 at 10:20 AM, Killax said:
Hacka and Smasha are purely there for support in my opinion
In addition if they also are there they become very obnoxious for your opponent to deal with. The cool thing about support offcourse is that it boosts offense and defence to me this is what makes them so strong. Having 4 models is still just very ideal as all choices arn't too difficult 
As well as giving support, worth also mentioning that successful attacks means you can drive the enemy fighter back, so even if they’re not causing much damage, they can be useful for shunting enemies out of position/off objectives etc.
-
1
-
-
I agree with you CodFather i.e. you can place the last one in an edge hex even if there are other valid spaces available. There’s no change as I see it to the rule for deploying the last objective.
The only change is the caveat to prevent the bizarre situation where certain board combinations/objective placing meant that you find you couldn’t place the 4th objective legally. So they’ve just given space in the rules to allow that situation to be worked around (by using an edge space that is otherwise not legal for the 4th objective), rather than breaking the game before it even starts.
-
I agree - a charge is explicitly stated (page 22) to be a move action and then (note: separate) an attack action, therefore I’d say the attack part of the charge can be ‘the next attack action’ for ploy purposes.
The trade off is a the same as for all charges - your fighter then can’t do much/anything else for the rest of the round so is at risk of being a sitting duck...
-
I agree they are hugely satisfying when things go well.
I’ve only played half a dozen or so games now (spent most of my time painting the models and trawling through the cards!). So wouldn’t claim to be any kind of expert. But so far I think movement/positioning is important for bloodreavers.
I’ve enjoyed stacking several objectives that give multiple glory points for your fighters being in enemy territory and for no enemies in your territory. Combine that with putting your objective placements in (or as close as possible to) enemy territory to reduce the incentive for the opponent to come forward in the first place...
And careful movement/positioning obviously gives support bonuses. Plus I’ve found Karsus can repeat-attack from 2 range without much retaliation (eg against an enemy fighter who charged) if positioned carefully.
So much to explore with this game...
-
1
-
-
Cleave also helps against any ‘dodge’ defence fighter who goes on guard, of course... although I’m not sure how often people are using ‘guard’ so far (possibly a topic in itself...)
-
2
-
-
I agree with you re: insensate vs righteous zeal. Really curious to see if there’s any other views or if my other half was just being cheeky ?
re: attacking multiple targets, see page 21 of rule book. Box in top right corner: “each of these attack actions is a separate action”, so I would say yes it can be used for the second attack.
-
1
-
-
Something that came up in a game I played yesterday... (for context, playing against my other half who isn't a regular gamer - so it was interesting to see how she interpreted things). Sorry if this has been covered - I had a quick scan of the GW FAQ and this thread and didn't see it.
Me playing Insensate (Bloodreavers - next attack against me only causes 1 damage) vs opponent playing Righteous Zeal (Stomcast - +1 damage to their next attack)
After my activation, in the power phase I played Insensate to protect a fighter who only had 2 wounds left, knowing my opponent would be attacking that fighter next. I thought that would make my fighter 'safe' because the worst that could happen was him going down to 1 wounds, but not actually dying. My opponent responded by playing Righteous Zeal.
I said there wasn't much point her playing RZ because no matter how many extra damage she added, Insensate would mean I only take 1 anyway. She queried why her card didn't then kick in after that i.e. her fighter by default deals 2 damage, so Insensate reduces that to 1, but then Righteous Zeal adds 1 to that, meaning total of 2.
My view is that RZ would add 1 to the default damage (taking 2 to 3), then be brought back down to 1 by Insensate. But we had a bit of a discussion around whether the order in which the cards are played made any difference - basically whether the order that you add/reduce the damage to in this situation depends on which of the two cards was played first.
In the end we didn't agree, so just rolled off to decide which way to play it.
Any thoughts?
The Shadespire News and Rumour Thread
in Underworlds
Posted
Think I read something about the troll just wanting to find somewhere to sleep... would be cool if it inspired simply by being the target of an attack (regardless of damage suffered or not), as it just goes nuts at anybody interrupting its sleep ?