Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

RedMax

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Celestant-Prime

About RedMax

  • Rank
    Retributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not really a rumour, but I just notice that some battletome did not get theire FaQ translated. I think it may have been a mistake done during upload of the FaQ, but after checking other language, it appear the both Cities of Sigmar and Orruk Warclans dont have any translation for last FaQ (07/20/2020). Is it possible it to be a first sign of limited support of this factions?
  2. Hi @Emmetation, any news regarding translations?
  3. RedMax

    Skarbrand

    Correct, warscroll have been completly reworked last year to make it more behemot standard. So @Louzi, if GW changed completly warscroll, this is probabl that you were not the only one strugling with it.
  4. I first read "I ran out of blood (for the blood god)"
  5. I agree with you. I can undestand they removed for matched play rules of the Chaos Dreadlord (in v1) that was completly unbalanced/game breaker depending of faction of if you have terrain in your side (or near obj). even in narative play I didnt used them (so impacting that they should have cost in point and be treaten as you treat faction terrain...). But this terrain warscroll set was looking to me absolutly "neutral" and almost taste-less. So this is a surprise to me that they are going this way.
  6. Hi, good news! FaQ confirmed this is a typo : https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/YlH5dYMq3VCRtmgb.pdf Page 13 – Legions of Nagash, Hexwraiths Change the points value to ‘130’. Page 13 – Legions of Nagash, Morghast Archai Change the points value to ‘190’. Page 13 – Legions of Nagash, Morghast Harbingers Change the points value to ‘190’. So FaQed point of OBR were intended to by apply to LoN as well as Nighthaunt one. So we are still in a system where a single unti have always same point cost no mater the army (as expected)!
  7. Yes definitively. An this is something player need to agree and be aligned with or they will be frustrated. Anyway, this is sometime a goos source of inspiration. If a player want to test a specific "trick" or "theme" (e.g. just finished to paint a specific new unit and want to have it playing central role or specific task). This is usually great opportunity to ensure that unite or hero will do what they are designed to do the best. If a player want to play in this unit that is obliviously a "hero hunter", let's ensure that in th ebattle plan, there is a goal to reach for him to hunt an ememy hero. This way, even if this player "loose" the battle from narative point of view, he can win some of his goal making both player having successed in what they have to do (breaking the "I win so you loose" case). On top of that it can lead to really epic situation! Yes definitively a good source or reward. I also spot some interesting artifact in Forbiden power. Now all the subtility is in the power escalation. I see alligeance artifact as minor impacting improvement (at hero level) so if a player will play a lot of game, this sound to me good type of reward to avoid him progressing too quick. Another player playing less often will require either more artefact as reward (bot then loos a litel the feeling of earning something good) or having more impacting reward. Also, some player may switch faction during campain. So that what I love with granting them Destiny points. They can move to another faction and keep something like equivalent of progress on theire hero. I also try to see if there is oportunity to have visual impacting chage. E.g I prepare a game where a bande of gloomspite will be involved. Leader is a Loonbos on giant Squig. There is on way it think about where event may lead him to get a mangler squig in the futur (we already own the mini obliviously). Many opportunity in most range like Mighty Lord of Khorn moving into DP or Bloodtrither (that could even movel into a Skarbrand after some difficult battle to reflect how damage he suffer). In any case, it link back to what was say before by B&P Gamer, GM neet to have last word on list (and I will even add on army balance). a 1k vs 2k game may be great with correct goal balance. As some game 2 vs 1 (2 player that naratively make no sens to fight against could be coalition agains the GM).
  8. Hi, how do you organise the narrative part of the games? In my case, and I dont state this is the norme, I organise the narrative for games as a GM in a role playing game would do. 1 - I confirm who will be next players. if only one is avaiable, I'll be opponent, if 2 player are available they will encouters. Also confirm with them what they will play as army. 2 - I will, as GM, elaborate the story. Based on previous event of the campain, previous decision taken, and finding a good reason to put the 2 opponents in conflict somewhere. 3 - Elaborate also the battle scenario that will match the story and involved forces. anyway, unlike in a matched play tournament, in the battle plan, opponent on the battlefield may not especial seek victory (over victory points) but more to achieve goals (killing a specific caracter from other army, reaching a specific point of the battle field to find item/path to somewhere/information...). My objective in this battleplans is not to try to elaborate a symetric or equilibred play, but to provide to both player ability to make story progress the way he may prefer by actions. So by this way, players will intend to win or dominate the battle to make the global story going "theire way" (or presenting theire faction as "the good" in this chapter of the story). I usually already provide outcome options to players befor the game, so they have an idea about what they have to acomplish and decision "winer" of the battle will be able to take. => player need to definitively agree with the aproach as it can lead to battle really unbalanced, and even in some case, battleplan were on player will "lose" battle for scenario reason. Idea is to provide, in such case, goal achivable for him anyway (like surviving X round, killing x % of enemy army, ...) to keep player involved and motivated to fight (not beeing just here waiting for the end). Even "loosing" does not prevent beeing rewarded for what have been achiev on the battlefield. 4 - an idea I got, but I was not yet able to implement, is to enforce for all player usage of a hero, build using the Apotheosys Anvil. This way, I could implement in scenario some perks to allow player to make theire hero progressing. E.g: all player have to take in theire army a 10 DP hero (counting for 100Army pts as we try to keep using army point system to help to balance battle), but I'm considering implementing a system of "XP" allowing for exemple, for a win or specific acomplishement, the player to use more DP (adding a capacity) but while keeping hero "costing" 100 army point (e.g wining battle arewaring your hero of 2 extra DP to use in the Anvil to get new aptitude making hero 12 DP but still counting as 100 Army point for futur battles). Same aproche possible with artefact that player could find and keep. In short, idea is to create a climat where players come and participate not intending to "win the campain" but more helping the narative to progress. Also "rewarding" player to participate (XP, artifact, choising way story will go next step), even if player, due to scenario, will not win the battle (as traditionnaly intended in matched play battle plan). I admit that it may be a really non common aproch as I didnt find material of such sort of campain/story online for AoS. I may have this approach only because I played a lot of "paper RPG" in the past and really try to recreate this experience but with cool mini in AoS context. Obliviously, this bring also lot of constrain, like not having too many player involved (or it is hard to keep track of everything ans story will go in to many direction with to many faction). You also have to keep all player updated about story progress (implying keeping notes, and eventually try to consign everything in a file, adding picture to make it nice looking ). I hope it help and may give you some idea!
  9. I would mitigate that... it remain fun as long as you understand (at least high level) what is happening and why. Nothing is more frustrating that seeing your actions failling because computer apply a rule your not knowing (and if you would have know would have make you taking different options).
  10. @jamie.white in full honnesty, I'm sure the rules for objectif and ambush are desgined this way with intend to make this case not allowed: 12' of table edge for objectif 6' for holding objectif Ambush at 6' of table edge Ambush ability happening at the end of movement phase to ensure you are not moving this turn All this specific restriction "scream" to me that rules writers dont want people abusing of such mechanics and taking all objectif turn 1 or directly "holduping" rear table objectif in 1 turn like that, but working used (at 6' or less instead of less than 6' away from) let the door open. If someone I'm playing against explain clarly what he is doing when seting up in a game like that, I think I would be OK. not such a big game changer and many faction (at least Stormcast, Sylvaneth and Nighthaunt) can setup on the table without any restriction regarding table edge distance or objectif distance... ...at least except if a FaQ state this is not allowed.
  11. The involvement in technology in our game is an interesting topic. We are at a point where a smartphone with appropriate app could probably manage the whole GM part game like Silver Tower as exemple (instead ot he enemy behaviour table held by each player one by one, book with event, ...). Cannot deny that it could make game more quick and fluide and avoid to have to handle some not really instinctive rules&process to manage ennemis or env. So it would make the game experience probably better. Anyway, would it make the game more attractive to me. I'm not sure. This is typically sort of stuff that would make me not buy the game. As said, could be generational, but there is (to me) this feeling that "papper is eternal". In 10 year, I'm confident beeing able to play Silver tower again as it involve only stuff in the box (papper dice, card, mini, ...). If I have to involve external ressource like smatphone app or web site as mandatory element (with not decent "papper in the box" alternative), I will have feeling that this game only have a 3 to 5 years life time and then will no more be usable. This is even more true to me for AoS. After hundreds of hour painting hundred of minis, I want to be sure to be able to use them for years, even if I have to use a old game version because my range have been discontinuated. So as long as technology come as alternative like warscroll builder, AoSreminder, ... this sound good to me. but if starting to go the way as beeing mandatory with no alternative (or game design so oriented by technology option that alternative make game too unplayable), I'll see it as a regression.
  12. Yes. have a look at the 1st message of this post. The 2 "easiest" option are listed. There is also people making really good looking stuff but with photo editors tools (so requering far lot more work).
  13. Ok, so @Third you have answer to your question. Answer from @Isotop is that, yes, you can. He put a lot of effort to to convince us. So let's say this is correct answer and look at what it imply. For me this is a correct answer only in an ideal world as it work only if all distance are exactly et precisly the maximum of what they could be. So Objective need to be exactly at 12 of the table edge (not 12.00001 or it will not work) Unit that ambush need to come exactly at 6 of the table edge (and not 5.999999 neither 6.000001) and with the nearest edge of 1 mini base exactly on the point were is crossing the "6' away from edge line" with "line that is connecting objective to table edge within 12" (there is only 1 point and you need to have the tip of your model base here, as base are round, if you are exactly at 6' from table edge but at 0.0001' away of this crossing line, you are no more withing 6' of the objectif). For me this is not possible to achieve this in a real world with model and using tap mesuring tool. Anyway, I agree that you could "state" it to force it to happened: -> when placing objective on the table, be clear with your opponent: "this objective is exactly at 12" of table edge" (and at this moment, you opponent already understand what you'll intent to do ) -> when you setup your ambush unit, be clear also: "this unit/mini is exactly at 6' from table edge and at 6' from objective" If your opponent agree or does not complain about the 2 previous statement (which should be the case in most of FLGS), I'm with @Third, if your unit have a move of 6, it is possible to consider it beeing at 6' of the objective after move (obliviously if unit is able to go straig to the objective center without having to avoid any obstacle or deal with any relief). Now, if you dont state and clearly say to your opponent when placing objectif and your unit that you intend to have them at this exact distance, for me this is not possible to achieve and I would not blame opponent to deny this if you didnt really clearly say for each or this steps that you intented to be here/at this distance.
  14. Yeah, I agree. I dont play neither of them so didnt know, but my understanding is same as you, errata containing point ocste make it prety clear for both of them. I have to admit that's not a big surprise for horrors. This warscroll is a little odd, but assuming it was 3 differents warscroll in the past, this special rule intente to limite battleline role to pink only. This is faire to avoid somone to build list with 3x brimstone and having "paid his battle line tax". For Ardboy, I dont know Orruk well enough to understand why, but rule seems clear in the erata point table. As writen, for me they, no more count as battleline once they are 9 or less. Not sure if this is what is intenended.
  15. yep, each upgrade can be taken only 3 time in total. But not sure what you try exactly to achive. If looking to build the more deadly mele fighter, I'm confident. you could instead look at 2x 1 hand weapon. There is several weapon profil, and then many upgrade possible (+1a, +1 to hit, +1 to wound, improve rend, 6 to hit making 2 hit, 6 to bless making additional mortal wound, etc). now, if for any reason you are looking for the highest possible damage to a single weapon hit, I've just looked quick at such config, but guess max would be 6 damage. Extreme case is probably 2 hand hammer: 2a/4+/2+/-2/3damage that could be improved into: 5a/1+/1+/-3/6damage (there is also a rule limiting rend to a max of -3).
×
×
  • Create New...