Screwface
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Screwface
-
-
7 hours ago, Matt Large said:
There's nothing in the ruling on the warscroll that says it can only be done on the turn they are destroyed... it says "at the end of each of your turns, you can pick one unit of Stabbas or Shootas that has been destroyed". That isn't the same as something like "at the end of a turn in which a unit of Stabbas or Shootas was destroyed", which I think is how you are interpreting it.
No I favour playing it RAW as you described but it just seems a bit weird that my opponent could have brought back half the unit after his entire army had been wiped out.
-
8 hours ago, Garuun said:
you roll at the end of every turn for each destroyed unit, as per the loonshrine warscroll
That's not what the warscroll says.
-
I asked this question in the rules section but no response. Any answers?
Re loonshrine: "Is there anything that stops you from bringing back the unit in a round other than the one in which they were destroyed. If so, could you even do this after your entire army was wiped out? Cheers..."
-
1 minute ago, decker_cky said:
I'll take it! I'm pretty sure Beasts lost both their 6th edition and 7th edition battle reports.
I think it's comparable but removes extra dice rolling. Remember that they gain 2 attacks (different profile) that bloodgreed applies to, meaning 4-5 attacks that can trigger bloodgreed rather than 2-3.
Most importantly:
- new bloodgreed is slightly more consistent damage; and
- new bloodgreed justifies taking bullgors without a doombull.
Yes I guess so, I just liked the insane damage it was possible to put out against low armour hordes with the old rule, with both bullgors and Ghorgons.
Do we know if the Doombull's command ability is the same?
-
So isn't this a nerf to bullgors with regard to the bloodgreed rule? Surely the extra attacks on a 6 (given the old rule didn't need it to be an unmodified 6) is better than a mortal wound for each unmodified 6.
-
Cool, thanks. I'll give it a shot and post pics.
-
Has anyone considered using the bloodbowl minotaur as a doombull conversion? I'm thinking about it but having a hard time gauging whether it's big enough. Has anyone seen it up close? It's on a 32mm base but it does fill the bases completely.
-
-
It's pure wishlisting, and I know he died in the end times, but how I'd love to finally see a Taurox model. I think in a funny kind of way his aesthetic would really fit with AoS.
-
Yeah but right now minotaurs are only battleline if you're going full warherd. The option to mix factions while keeping minos as battleline through a doombull general would be awesome. Back in 8th edition I used to run the classic minotaur deathstar (minobus) with a massive unit of gor as backup and a few units of ungor raiders for good measure. I'd love to be able to recreate that.
-
1
-
-
I'm hoping Minotaurs are battleline if a Doombull is general.
-
1 hour ago, Tzaangor Management said:
Looking really good @Swooper, coming together really nicely. Think I only really noticed the banner because you mentioned it, but you could probably just extend the lines a little to the right if it's really nagging at you.
Where was the menhir / mini herdstone from?
That's from the Cygor/Ghorgon kit.
-
1
-
1
-
-
So when I attack with my unit I don't cause wounds to her? Even though it says that I wound her with, say, my Blightkings on a 3?
Edit: not trying to be argumentative, just seems wounds are both passive and active to me, you can do them and take them.
Edit again: so maybe the use of the word allocate is what I should focus on as you allocate attacks and damage, but not wounds per se. Still wish wounds didn't apply to 2 separate things on warscrolls.
-
Then why didn't they just say 3 damage?
-
So help me out here, are they saying that only 3 damage can be allocated to her per turn, or are they talking about 3 wounds which could have multiple damage? Could Alarielle's beetle take her out in one go for example?
-
On 21/11/2017 at 6:27 PM, Sennyo said:
rumor engine time
Three fingers; it's a skink hand. Same bracelet as the skinks on the Bastiladon model for eg.
-
11 hours ago, HorticulusTGA said:
Yeah, no : what I meant is that between all the other Nurgle units of the forthcoming (finger crossed) Battletome, the Pestigors should be a fast infantry unit (i.e. faster than Blightkings and Plaguebearer, but of course slower than units form other gods allegiances
What specific movement value do you think they should be then?
-
Just now, BURF1 said:
Via Urban Dictionary; Stink Bone: The medical term used by white trash when referring to the pelvis.
You learn something new everyday.
E.g. - Lurlene, I done busted my stankbone.
Anyway, back on topic. Those rumors hey?
-
8 minutes ago, BURF1 said:
Technically you can tell gender too but...that seems like an excessive amount of effort for a 28mm model.
Exactly, and with the models being so fragile the last thing you'd want is to snap your skeleton's stink-bone.
-
Ok, I'm with you. It was the coupling of the word "race" with "gender" that threw me - sounded like he was talking about actual races and genders, not made up ones...
-
18 minutes ago, pseudonyme said:
their future scheletons should cover every race and gender, like the undead character from the video game Divinity original sin 2 revealed this week. That would be bold from them and fun for us
You can tell someone's race from their skeleton?!?!?!!?!!?!?!
-
19 hours ago, Rogue Explorator said:
I am really digging the helmet on the Knight of Shrouds, but, apart from that, he looks very generic. Like the Shadowspire Deathrattle, I just don't get that "Yes-that is definitely an Age of Sigmar miniature" feel I got from all the other releases so far.
I think that's what I like about this model. It almost seems like a nod back to the Old World of WFB and a nice break from the new aesthetic.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Kurrilino said:
yeah yeah yeah..... we are all exited.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with AGE OF SIGMAR rumours
Actually it potentially does. If the same rule structure for AoS is used for 40k, what's to stop people staging mixed-system battles? It wouldn't even be that hard to explain fluff-wise. "One game to rule them all" and so forth...
-
1
-
-
I wish Nibbles was around to see this. Call me petty, but he deserves a big fat told-ya-so.
Warhammer - The Old World
in Warhammer: The Old World
Posted · Edited by Screwface
I like and play AoS but in my personal opinion WFB was just a better, richer game. Units (again, in my opinion) had more character and diversity, heroes were more individualistic, and the setting was more attractive given it was far more Tolkien-esque. I'd be happy if they basically released a WFB 9th ed based heavily on 8th ed, complete with square bases, movement trays and the rest.