Jump to content

Destrin

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Destrin

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Essex, United Kingdom
  1. I guess so but until then, what do we do? Just make something up? Ignore them and don't use them? There is no rule for how to handle these currently
  2. The lack of rules around which deck to draw from for deployment/terrain/objectives is quite annoying. If the RRG just mentioned whether you use first or second players decks that would at least help but right now it's 'flail wildly and guess'
  3. The first point is super valid! Shame on me for working off the assumption of 'edges' being the two sides and not including the player edges, having it further away from the player edge gives you much more deployment space to work with. 3 trays comes to just over the half way point of the 3 band on the ruler, so even though this gives you more room to deploy, it's still potentially an issue for the largest units.
  4. It seems the likely answer, but there is nothing preventing it in the rules as they are written that I can find. At this point there is no solid argument for preventing someone from doing so if they wanted to try.
  5. Had this come up in a game yesterday If you play with the 'Unprepared' deployment zone (red 5 deep, blue 1 deep) it's legal to place terrain very close to the blue deployment zone (it cannot touch it but it can be just over range 1 away from the table edge Terrain cannot be placed at range 1–2 of the edge of the play area, at range 1–2 of other terrain, or touching either deployment area. If I have a unit that is 2+ ranks deep, it cannot fit into the range 1 deployment zone, so by rule 26.2, it must be deployed so that it's back edge is touching the edge of the play area. It's entirely possible to deploy this unit so that it overlaps any terrain that is placed very close to the deployment zone (try deploying the forest just over range 1 from the table edge then try and deploy 'behind' it with a rank 2+ unit, it overlaps the terrain. My question: is it legal to deploy overlapping the terrain in this manner? Strict reading of the rules as written, you can do this, further reading does get a bit odd though, my initial thought would be that as soon as said unit moved, if it was still overlapping the terrain after it's move, it would enter the terrain, however: 81.1 If a piece of terrain has a capacity value, a unit can choose to enter and occupy a piece of that terrain when that unit collides with it. 18 Collision After a unit performs a march (?) or shift (?) action, if it is touching an obstacle that it was not touching before performing that action, it has collided with that obstacle. The collision rules are written such that if I was already touching the terrain, I am unable to 'collide' with it unless I first move away and then move back in again. This is mostly because apart from the deployment scenario above, it's not possible to be overlapping a piece of terrain, which does kind of imply that you can't deploy overlapping the terrain at all. This happened in a game yesterday, in the end I deployed slightly to the left of said terrain and used a shift to move into it on the first turn, but it would be good to get an official clarification on whether you can deploy overlapping terrain or not. I think it's only a problem in unprepared. I guess it might be a problem with huge units in hammer and anvil or battle lines but I've not checked the relative sizes of trays to see if that would be an issue
  6. I'm massively suspicious, the lack of previews and updates to the 'coming soon' pages as well as Esdevium's recent capacity to screw things up gives me minimal confidence. About the only thing that supports it being true is that it would roughly match with the original timing cycle for X-Wing releases in terms of months since the core set release.
  7. Doh, we posted at the same time...
  8. Esdevium (UK distributors of everything FFG) have mailed retailers saying wave 2 for Armada will be out in July and to get their preorders in. This seems really unlikely to me personally given the lack of updates on the product pages here. Have any US distributors had information that they are going to ship that early?
  9. Just reading over the latest designer diary and it struck me that at a distance these two icons look very similar. How large are those command dials? Could those icons be easily confused or is this a non-issue? Seems like an odd choice either way, they should have been made as distinct as possible, preferably a different colour too, just to highlight the differences
  10. They pretty much mirror my thoughts as well, good to know other people think the same way
  11. For the specific purposes I'm thinking about, we have a Ratcatcher with the 'Threading the needle' action card. If the players Small But Vicious Dog is engaged with the target, would you count that as sufficient for fulfilling the 'At least one ally must be engaged with the target' requirement of the action card? I'm mostly inclined to allow it but I'm interested on other GM's thoughts (and an official call if anyone is interested enough to give one )
  12. mac40k said: NezziR said: dvang said: 2) based on #1, you cannot have a skill trained more times than your rank. ...unless you train it during creation, then train it again for your career - right? I consider chargen to be part of Rank 1, so if a character both acquires and trains a Skill during chargen, he can't train it again until he is Rank 2. But you are rank 2 once you have earned 10xp, so your 10th advance in your basic career does allow you to train a skill that you already trained during character generation? I cannot find anything that limits character to training a skill once per career. only by rank.
  13. The component list doesn't have any of the components from Omens of War listed. Is this going to be updated soon?
  14. pumpkin said: We do use a house roule though that a converted Chaos star is converted to a challenge AND a bane, which makes the chaos star a bit more fearful even on these "everyday" rolls; I just don't think a single bane quite cuts it! I've been thinking about doing this anyway...good to hear other people have already attempted it...things do seem a little too easy otherwise
  15. Just interested in people's thoughts on the scenario where a Chaos Star and a Sigmar's comet come up in the same roll, specifically with generic skill rolls that aren't action cards. Example from my game last night: One of the guys was rolling an Athletics check to escape the guards and rolled 2 successes, a comet and a chaos star. I read this as a 'success, but something bad happened'. He's clearly succeeded well but something bad has happened. How would you get across a success but have something bad happen that doesn't invalidate the success of that roll? Or, if you are judging rolls that aren't related to action cards, and a chaos star comes up, do you just downgrade it to a bane?
×
×
  • Create New...