Jump to content

Bayard2

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Bayard2

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Gent, Gent, Belgium
  1. Callidon said: Looking for the "right" path of careers is going to drive any normal human insane. Unless a career says "requires completion of X" it's going to be up to the needs of the group/roleplaying/etc. In the past I have seen Knights arise from common backgrounds when knighted by someone (Enemy Within Campaign for example), so I would just let it roll and if Pistolier works for the player/situation then groovy. Otherwise....let it happen as best fits your campaign imo. I guess you're right Callidon. If someone wants to start out as squire, I'll let them use either the soldier or pistolier template (whichever is most appropriate), and let them pick fitting skills/talents/actions. For players who like to pick randomly, and don't like the pistolier template as a precursor to knight (maybe because of the firearms or so for Ulricans), I'll let them exchange the pistolier for the soldier template and interpret it as a squire if they so wish, and let them pick their skills, talents and actions accordingly. The careers in this edition are seemingly supposed to be more 'generic' anyway, as there are lots more different options within the same career as in the previous editions. In fact, that's why I allow players to pick their finished careers 'again' if they so wish (they still pay for the transition tho, but count as a next rank). That way you can get very experienced Bounty Hunters, Wardancers, etc. So if you want to become an uber-cool Bounty Hunter, it's possible without being forced to start another career. Also, why should a Sword Master or Wardancer be forced to become something else? They could just stay in the cool careers they are in if they so wish. They could still change careers if they wanted to of course. Maybe the new 'Veteran' career will provide for some interesting options.
  2. souljawebb said: Bayard said: This seems like a good expansion, but a gripe of mine (except for not having an abstracted mass combat system), is that there doesn't seem to be a squire career. I think they should have included 'Squire' as a basic career, or otherwise should have made 'Knight' a basic career instead of an advanced one. When you have Wardancers, Waywatchers and Swordmasters running around as basic careers, it shouldn't be too hard or unbalancing to make a basic career profile for a Knight, maybe it could then be called 'Young Knight' or so. But a 'Squire' basic career would still have my preference. What is supposed to be the 'basic' predecessor of 'Knight' now, that doesn't seem too contrived, anyway? If a player wants to have a 'knightly' basic career, which career should he choose if there's no squire and he can't start out as a knight? I feel 'Soldier' or so just wouldn't do... I'm thinking of maybe putting the Knight career card amongst the basic career cards, and if it gets drawn/chosen, consider it a squire that is nearing the end of his training or a freshly dubbed knight. But then I probably would have to alter some of the career attributes/powers on the card for balancing reasons until he is a 'proper' knight. What do you guys think? Bayard said: This seems like a good expansion, but a gripe of mine (except for not having an abstracted mass combat system), is that there doesn't seem to be a squire career. I think they should have included 'Squire' as a basic career, or otherwise should have made 'Knight' a basic career instead of an advanced one. When you have Wardancers, Waywatchers and Swordmasters running around as basic careers, it shouldn't be too hard or unbalancing to make a basic career profile for a Knight, maybe it could then be called 'Young Knight' or so. But a 'Squire' basic career would still have my preference. What is supposed to be the 'basic' predecessor of 'Knight' now, that doesn't seem too contrived, anyway? If a player wants to have a 'knightly' basic career, which career should he choose if there's no squire and he can't start out as a knight? I feel 'Soldier' or so just wouldn't do... I'm thinking of maybe putting the Knight career card amongst the basic career cards, and if it gets drawn/chosen, consider it a squire that is nearing the end of his training or a freshly dubbed knight. But then I probably would have to alter some of the career attributes/powers on the card for balancing reasons until he is a 'proper' knight. What do you guys think? Hello, there shouldnt be a squire career becaue, Empire Knights dont have squires the young nobles spend there time as pistolers before joining a order if they join one at all and its also not uncommon for a commner as such to joina "Knightly order" but most of them are former pistoleers. Suires are the realm of bretonnia Knights which are the more stereotypical Knights that people exepect. Empire Knights are more templar Style Knights great warriors but not very "Knightly" you can read the Empire Codex and some of the Novels covering the Empire and bretonnia to reference some of this Info Hope this helps. Well, here I would like to refer to my previous post where I talk about changing the background of the WH World retroactively to fit the current edition of WFB. The Empire had squires in 1st and 2nd edition WFRP, not only rules-wise, but also as a background element... And while Pistolier may indeed be a fitting entry point for some knightly orders, that certainly doesn't account for all of them, with the White Wolves of Ulric (spurning firearms, or did they change that part of the background too?...) as the most glaring example. Besides, if all Empire knights were trained pistoliers, what's keeping them from carrying a brace of pistols holstered to their horses as backup? You don't even see that in WFB!
  3. Cabello said: The precursor is actually the pistoller according to the book. That is where knights are almost exclusively drawn from, addtitionally only nobles become knights. outriders are also a path after the pistoller and is open to all classes of society. also pistollers who fail to become knights also become outriders I'm afraid that would present a problem, especially for Knights of the White Wolf or other knights that are not too fond of firearms. It seems background elements (and not only rules, which is fine) are getting changed in regard to previous editions. I find that a bit damaging for the 'immersion' into the WH World of old hands like me and my group... But maybe the pistolier career is flexible enough to allow interpreting it as a squire if one would want. If not, maybe the soldier career could be interpreted as a squire if necessary. Ride skill should be taken as mandatory in that case. What is the career ability of Pistoliers? If it has nothing to do with pistols, it could 'count as' a squire maybe. If it does, maybe substitute the pistol ability with an equivalent lance ability or so. And for the more 'modern' knightly orders (Reiksgard,...?) the pistolier serves as a good precursor as is. But maybe soldier would be fine technically if the appropriate skills/talents/actions are chosen. The career ability of a soldier (recovering 1 stress & fatigue each combat rally step) seems more or less ok for a squire who just when through years of rigorous training.
  4. Thinking of it, there also doesn't seem to be a 'Noble' career yet. But maybe that's something they are saving for the Slaanesh expansion.
  5. This seems like a good expansion, but a gripe of mine (except for not having an abstracted mass combat system), is that there doesn't seem to be a squire career. I think they should have included 'Squire' as a basic career, or otherwise should have made 'Knight' a basic career instead of an advanced one. When you have Wardancers, Waywatchers and Swordmasters running around as basic careers, it shouldn't be too hard or unbalancing to make a basic career profile for a Knight, maybe it could then be called 'Young Knight' or so. But a 'Squire' basic career would still have my preference. What is supposed to be the 'basic' predecessor of 'Knight' now, that doesn't seem too contrived, anyway? If a player wants to have a 'knightly' basic career, which career should he choose if there's no squire and he can't start out as a knight? I feel 'Soldier' or so just wouldn't do... I'm thinking of maybe putting the Knight career card amongst the basic career cards, and if it gets drawn/chosen, consider it a squire that is nearing the end of his training or a freshly dubbed knight. But then I probably would have to alter some of the career attributes/powers on the card for balancing reasons until he is a 'proper' knight. What do you guys think?
  6. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=7&efcid=1&efidt=87088 also discusses this scenario, for those interested.
  7. In response to Hefsgaard (OP): Some cards were 'errated' when they were already printed (because the main rules were still in development), so they had to put the revisions in the main rulebook instead of on the cards. The errata for the 'Camouflage' card (and a few others) are in the main rules on p. 47. Replace the text on the card with: Your concealed squads are not revealed when firing, unless the attack inflicted 2 or more hits on the enemy. Concealment is something else: you can be 'concealed' without being 'camouflaged', but not the other way round: to be able to benefit from 'camouflage', you need to be 'concealed'.
  8. CthIngo said: Bayard said: The Americans start the game with 4 concealment markers. Can these be used to conceal squads on victory/objective hexes within their setup zone? The rules state that concealed units become revealed when they move into an objective/victory hex. Nothing is said about setup, however. This has been kinda "officially" answered by Mike Z over at the Geek. It's probably still debatable from this answer if one really wants to stress it any further, but the point "No concealed squads in objective hexes under any circumstances" is sorta obvious (and the reasons for that too). Have a look at the "inofficial" FAQ collecting questions and answers posted on BGG, including this one. Might be useful? Thanks. I found the answer on boardgamegeek too in the meantime. It is now obvious the game developers didn't intend to allow concealed squads to set up in objective hexes. The rule could have been written more clearly, however. Because I suspect (but am not quite sure) that the designer of the 'Twin Villages' scenario (Mike Bennighof, who is hasn't designed ToI, only written a scenario for it...) took the literal interpretation, thus allowing for concealed setup (option 3 in my original post). It would certainly balance the scenario somewhat. But unless he's active here or on BGG, I'm afraid we'll never know what his intention was... In the meantime I'll either avoid the scenario, or propose a special rule allowing concealed setup on objective hexes for this scenario only, before sides are chosen.
  9. Cyscott1 said: I have a scenario I've been working on for a while that uses normandy boards. Could it be published with a photo of the actual map and the needed text in a .pdf? Or is there an issue I'm not seeing? You could do that, I think. Someone did something like that with the 'Ruweisat Ridge' scenario, that uses the Days of the Fox expansion. You could look it up and see how the author proceeded. It would certainly be nice to see more scenarios using the expansions.
  10. I second that! (Apparently the above sentence was too short to be published on its own...)
  11. We were playing 'Twin Villages' from the designer's series last night, when a question came up during setup: The Americans start the game with 4 concealment markers. Can these be used to conceal squads on victory/objective hexes within their setup zone? The rules state that concealed units become revealed when they move into an objective/victory hex. Nothing is said about setup, however. So which of the following interpretations do you think is correct?: 1. The rule should be interpreted literally, meaning squads can be set up concealed in victory/objective hexes (as long as they don't move into them once the game starts). 2. The rule was poorly worded, but intends that squads cannot be concealed in victory/objective hexes, not even during setup. 3. "2." is correct, but the scenario designer (Mike Bennighof) assumed or intended "1." to be correct, at least in this scenario (In which case a scenario special rule should be provided.) Many thanks for your input! To get on with the game, we decided to roll a die to decide between options 1 and 2, resulting in option 2 and a rather swift American defeat. (As it proved almost impossible to hold on to the American objective hex already from the first round, which in turn severely impeded the intervention of the American artillery). I was undecided on the interpretation when we rolled for it, but after playing the scenario I tend towards option 1, or maybe 3... Your thoughts?
  12. 1) Yes, the unit stays hidden. See page 2 of the latest FAQ. 2) Yes, I don't see why not. I think the rules would state it if it were otherwise.
  13. Ghengisgarber said: Bunkers are why flame throwers were invented. The dble mg cannot mele , will cause no casualities and has no cover from flame throwers. Results are usually one dead dble mg. Why wouln't MG's be able to defend against an assault? (I guess that's what you meant by melee)? I found no rule on this. A double mortar squad would be screwed when assaulted though, because they can't attack an adjacent hex and assaults are from adjacent hexes. Maybe you thought that this rule applies to all heavy weapons? Or that because heavy weapons can't assault, MG's can't defend against one either? True, MG's can't take an assault action, but there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to defend against an assault. That being said, a double MG would indeed be toast when assaulted by flamethrowers, but would also inflict heavy casualties themselves (as losses happen simultaneously in an assault). So better suppress those MG's first!...
  14. I'm sure they accidentally swapped the American divisions. There is no other conclusion if you read the background story. An 'official' clarification would be nice though. Anyway, I'll play it the way I suggested in my original post. I think the best thing is to bring the point to the attention of your opponent before sides are chosen (we always choose our side/division randomly, so no problem there...).
  15. I would allow support in Assaults. The rule mechanic works (partially) the same way as combined fire, but that doesn't make it combined fire. Stating "as with combined fire" confirms this. It works the same way, but it's not the same. Otherwise the rules would simply state: "combined fire is allowed in assaults", which is not the case. And besides, assault support only partially works the same way as combined fire: i.e. only squads can support an assault, even fatigued squads can support an assault, and to support an assault the supporting squad must be adjacent to the target hex. It's actually only the mechanic of halving attack dice for supporting units that stays the same as with combined fire. So my take is that assaults can be safely supported, even if the scenario doesn't allow combined fire.
×
×
  • Create New...