Jump to content

Etna''s Vassal

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Etna''s Vassal

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -http://wargamingchaos.blogspot.com
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, United States
  1. Poe said: Etna''s Vassal said: The improvement on "The Gunners" from one bazooka to two overrides the unit's ability to upgrade the unit to carry M9-D bazookas? I'm not so sure about that one. It sort of makes that upgrade pointless unless you give it to the "Death Dealers". I'm going to pose this question over on the rules forum to get a consensus. I'm just not too sure about that call. This has been anwered by Zach: So I emailed Zach about the unit upgrades from Hades and the Core Rules… Rule Question: The DW:Hades book introduced many 'Unit Upgrades' for armies. In that section it says a unit may purchase one upgrade. In the DW:Core Rulebook, the Allies Combat Ranger Squad and Axis Battle Grenadiers maybe be "upgraded" to replace guns with a second heavy weapon. Do these unit upgrades prevent the unit from then taking a DW:Hades 'Unit Upgrade'? Each Soldier unit in a force may purchase one unit upgrade. This includes the unit-specific unit upgrades available to the Combat Ranger Squad and the Battle Grenadiers. If a unit purchases a unit-specific unit upgrade, it cannot purchase an additional unit upgrade from CB: Hades, and vice versa. I hope this has answered your question. Happy Gaming! Zach Tewalthomas Assoc. Miniatures Games Producer Fantasy Flight Games Ah, okay. I still think it's a silly ruling, but then again I'm not the maker of the game. Time to go back and re-write my army lists. Thanks!
  2. These rules queries came up today, and to be honest I'm really not too sure how to interpret the rules here. First, does "The Gunners" ability to take a second bazooka mean that they can't then upgrade their bazookas to M9-Ds? It sort of makes that upgrade kind of useless as all you can give that upgrade to "Death Dealers", nobody else. Second, do you have to be inside/in contact with cover in order to benefit from it? Or does it simply have to be between the attacker's and defender's squad leaders? The rulebook kind of contradicts itself on this point (I don't have my rulebook with me, sorry, but if you look under cover it says in base-to-base or inside, and I believe in line of sight it says between the attacker and the defender). I can post the page numbers later if it will help. Thanks for any help you can provide.
  3. The improvement on "The Gunners" from one bazooka to two overrides the unit's ability to upgrade the unit to carry M9-D bazookas? I'm not so sure about that one. It sort of makes that upgrade pointless unless you give it to the "Death Dealers". I'm going to pose this question over on the rules forum to get a consensus. I'm just not too sure about that call.
  4. I can't thank you enough for this program! It's saved me so much time over using a pen and paper, and there's no chance of my horrible math skills mucking up my point totals. Thanks for all of your work, and I hope Real Life lets you get back to gaming. I know I'd go crazy without my weekly gaming therapy.
  5. Another HH player here. If you're in the area, we're looking to put a tournament together in the next few months (probably January) so if you're interested in coming, keep an eye on this thread- space is limited.
  6. So, I was at my FLGS playing a game when we suddenly came across a rules issue. Maybe we missed something, though… We had built the following scenario: Break The Line, Unprepared deployment, No Conditions About a turn or so into the game we realized something- there's no way to win the game! Since the scenario calls for us to get our units into the enemy deployment zone, and there is no deployment zone, we figured that you just plain can't score points in this configuration. We ended up using the deployment zones a found in the Advancing Lines deployment option as a stopgap. Ultimately we'd prefer to find out how we're supposed to resolve this issue. Does anybody know? Was this FAQed? Did I miss something in the rulebook somewhere? Thanks!
  7. So that's it! Thanks for the answer, we were really perplexed by this one. Thanks for a quick answer.
  8. So, a friend and I were discussing the rules today, and we're both confused by something. What is the point of the removal of reaction markers when a unit regroups? Am I missing a way for a unit to gain multiple reaction markers? Wouldn't the reaction marker on the unit already have gone away? I guess this isn't so much a critical needs-to-be-answered-so-we-can-play-the-game kind of question, but this one's really got us stumped. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
  9. Looking good there! I wish I had the patience to paint camoflauge that intricate on soldiers that small!
  10. Yet another one: When a model suffers Knockback and lands in deep water, does it lose fatigue and / or wounds for "entering a deep water"?
  11. I still don't know, since the rule says "enter" instead of "move in to". We'll see when the FAQ comes out, though. Though the "moved by current" rule does set a basis from which to begin, and I'd agree that it seems as though the hero wouldn't lose the fatigue, but I still can see either interpretation as equally valid.
  12. I guess I was unclear- I was talking about two different playtesting SNAFUs.
  13. It just says: "It costs two movement points to enter a water space, regardless of whether it is shallow or deep. In addition, it costs heroes one fatigue to enter a deep water space. This cost is increased by one fatigue for every two points of armor (natural or otherwise, rounded down) the hero has" Nothing about losing fatigue for just sitting there, so as long as the hero doesn't move, he / she / it won't lose any fatigue. This does essentially remove the hero from the fight, though. I guess the argument comes down to what "entering a space" means.
  14. You are correct. I guess we got all wrapped up in the treachery aspect of the question, and forgot that the question was in regards to an encounter. Boy do I feel dumb...
  15. Yeah, on second thought it may have been Silhouette. I was thinking it was Red Scorpion due to her ability to convert wounds into fatigue, thus making both types of potions fatigue potions of varying effectiveness. ...Or the Beastman Lord being unable to win the final battle when one of the heroes is the faerie (can't remember her name off the top of my head). Regardless, this sort of exploit is hilarious to me, but can be ended with proper rules revision, which when done makes me smile.
×
×
  • Create New...