Ratamaplata
-
Posts
181 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Ratamaplata
-
-
Great conversions dude!
-
1
-
-
-
Just now, Jamopower said:
From the ends?
Haha oh yeah. Sometimes the obvious is missed!!
-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, Madra101 said:
A ruling on maintaining unit coherency is required. You should have to attempt to maintain coherency when removing models due to combat. Conga lines with no models in the middle doesn't make sense.
So how would you remove models if they were in a line? Any removal would leave a >1" gap.
-
How about this... something I don't think anyone has said and I think would clear up a lot of rule misunderstanding or conflicts...
The rules should define the basic actions first;
"move" = move up to etc...
"run" = roll a d6 etc...
"charge", "shoot" etc...
Then define each phase separately using reference to that glossary. I.e. 'Movement phase' allows every unit to move and run once. This should remove any need to say "as if in the X phase". It would also make it obvious as to when you just make a move or can also run.
When you include "set up" as well it should clear up special deployment rules/do they count as a move etc questions?
-
I still think wording of 'to wound' and damage etc should be changed. Just look at the rules questions sub forum... probably over 50% of questions relate to people misunderstanding the order of wound/save/damage/ability saves and/or if saves are allowed vs. abilities which say they cause wounds etc.
Definitely should be cleared up and could be done easily without any change to game mechanics.
-
2 hours ago, Dave Fraser said:
I'd like to see piling in tweaked. As it currently stands it can stop you from maximising the number of models in a unit from getting into combat from a unit, it would make more sense that you had to maximise the models in your unit fighting if you pile in (just your unit not your opponents, they can sort that in their pile in).
No idea how to word that rule though, possibly just change it to must pile in towards the nearest enemy unit not model?
Wouldn't that drastically reduce the cool tactics available though? Locking units in position to minimise attacks etc. I think the pile in rules are the best part of the game.
-
4
-
-
- Appoint a 3rd party GM
The GM selects both players armies, writes a battle plan and, if they want to, controls random events or other forces (i.e. a marauding monster).
- Barter your army selections
Both players bring all their forces then barter with each other... "What do you want to take if I have a MLoK and 10 Blood Warriors?" etc
- Random
Roll off for it. Line your units up and randomise... you might end up hugely outmatched, but trying to win those games is fun right?
-
16 hours ago, PJetski said:
This is exactly how it currently works though...
Am I missing something?
No because you roll to hit then wound (not damage) at the moment. Then wounds turn into a total damage pool, then damage gets applied as wounds.
The language used makes it unnecessarily complicated when applying rules which give saves against "wounds" / "mortal wounds" etc. Also makes it plainly obvious what abilities you get armour saves against rather than having the word "wound" before and after the armour save step (as it is now).
It doesn't change the mechanics in any way. It just makes it much easier to work out the interaction between various warscroll abilities and would make it easier for GW to use consistent wording when writing rules.
Easy change to make. Big gain available imo.
-
4
-
-
Clear up confusion of wound/damage. It should be...
1. roll to hit
2. roll to damage
3. armour save
4. determine no. of wounds
5. additional saves
Would make all the various special rules for inflicting or saving wounds/damage, and mortal wounds, tie up much easier.
-
2
-
TGA Official Generals Handbook 2 feedback
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Just get 32mm mdf circles and blutac them on for tournies?