Jump to content

Schmytz

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Schmytz

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Uppsala, Uppland, Sweden
  1. I wonder how recruitment into the RPG hobby really works. I would imagine that a whole range of existing products compatible with the new shiny would be a more attractive prospect than what DH 2.0 seems to offer. But what do I know, a new recruit might not care about the other game lines. But if FFG really want to cater to this hypothetical new crowd, why not do even more radical changes? Something in line with the Star Wars RPG perhaps? That system seems idealy suited to new RPGers. Anyway, I read through the Only War rulebook last night. Have had that book since release but not really looked at it (since I am mostly into DH). What a wonderful refinement of the 40K RPG system. It left me even more befuddled as to why FFG decided to go in the DH 2.0 direction. Such a missed opportunity.
  2. I love the Calixis sector and could be buying fluffy books about that setting forever. I also love the compatibility of the five 40K RPG systems. DH 2.0 leaves me cold and confused. Some form of DH 1.5 will be my choice for the future. Sorry FFG, no more money from me (except the fortune I will spend on X-wing stuff).
  3. Superglue works fine too. I found it helpful to use a dentist sculpting tool to push the tabs securely into place. I'm sure other implements of torture work just as well though. Agree about removing (or at least trimming down) the pegs.
  4. Wildlings and Night's Watch would be cool but I think they will concentrate on the Great Houses and the battles fought in the Seven Kingdoms proper. Later we will hopefully get more esoteric stuff like hairy Ibbenese whalers and entire units of valkyrie style fighting women.....oh
  5. ...and there was much salivating. When will it arrive in Sweden I wonder? Can't wait.
  6. About the board game. The basic game is great, but I much prefer to use the basic game plus the Storm of Swords expansion, since this version feels much more balanced and refined. With a completely different board and a bunch of new mechanics the SoS version is a de facto separate game from the original. If you stick to playing SoS there is no need to buy the A Clash of Kings expansion. What I would really like is a second edition of the game where you basically get the SoS experience in one box. The only drawback is that SoS cannot be played by more than four players. As it is now you must start by picking up the basic game anyway, so why not start there? I really recommend it to gamers who like plenty of player interaction and can handle the back-stabbing aspect of the game. Personally I detest Diplomacy but love this game strangley enough. While the comparison to Dippy is apt enough I think AGoT tBG is less hard core and much more accessible to people with varying gaming tastes. Battles of Westeros: As people have said, this is a completely different type of game than the board game. If you are OK with the fact that it is strictly a two player game, you cannot go wrong with BoW if you are a fan of the books. Sure, it is a bit hefty price wise but you get a lot of fun for the investment. The replayability is great even if you limit yourself to just the core set. BoW is the perfect hybrid between miniatures game and board game, letting you enjoy the feel of massed battlefield combat with a minimum of prep work. Gush gush gush... The LCG is the best game of them all, although a healthy local meta is necessary for it to really shine. Too bad my meta died down. I still buy everything that is released for it though. Love it.
  7. Well, on page 22 under "Retreating" it states: "For each <flag> result, the target of the attack must retreat one hex." No hint of a choice here. If you mean that the text on page 21 implicates a choice, isn't it odd that it not mentioned here at all?
  8. I think that the rules should be interpreted like this: If the target wasn't eliminated, the attacker checks if his attack causes the target to retreat or not.... etc. I don't believe there is a choice implicated here. Could be wrong though. English is not my native language. Perhaps Rob could clarify this...
  9. Hi there! I was thinking about what we could expect (or would wish) to see after the two already announced reinforcement sets. I would really like to see Houses Baratheon and Greyjoy joining the war. To make it really interesting why not introduce rules and scenarios for ships and naval combat? How about Ironborn raiding coastal villages? How about the Battle of Blackwater Bay? OK, perhaps we can't expect to see things like that anytime soon. Barring the above, I would like to see an House Tully expansion for the Stark side, and Clansmen for the Lannisters. I would also really like to have more variants for the existing characters. Come on, were is the Mountain that Rides? If House Umber is going to get cavalry, why not a mounted Greatjon to command them? Last but not least I want skirmishes where victory is determined by claiming objectives and not merely by eliminating enemy units. OK, that's what I think. How about you? Would be great to hear what BoW goodness you all are looking forward to.
  10. I agree that it does not seem to be the most powerful of tactics in the game
  11. By "attack phase" I assume you mean the command phase, i.e. when units are ordered? All inactive units are always rallied in the rally phase (big surprise!). In addition to this, units can be rallied in the command phase either by using a leadership card that specifically lets you rally units, or by using a morale order token. (Perhaps plus some commander special abilities that I can't quite remember right now.)
  12. 1) Even though you pay for all commands before ordering any units you still may execute the commands in any order. So, first move and/or attack with your units, then rally them. In practice, you simply move and attack and then leave the flags in the active position.
  13. I'm sure it literally means only your opponent's next turn. Before or after refers to the timing of the tactics. Before command means that the tactics trigger before you resolve the command(s) of that leadership card. After means that the tactics trigger after the command(s) are resolved. Before or after means that you have a choice, as long as the prerequisites of the tactics are met. Hope that was helpful to you.
  14. Hi again! I have a couple questions regarding this scenario (razing the red fork) or rather how some special abilities and rules used here really work. 1. First we have Clegane's commit ability. When a fire spreads "two hexes" I take it that you place a fire token in an adjacent hex and then a second fire token in one further hex in that direction. Would you agree or have I bungled it somehow? 2. Is there any restriction to which fires Gregor can cause to spread when he uses his commit ability? Must they be within his command zone, or can they be anywhere on the board? The same question can be applied to stuff like Robb Starks commit ability (auto hits on engaged enemy units). I mean, when it comes to effects like rallying or ordering friendly units the rules clearly states that only unit within ZoC can benefit, but when it comes to these more unique abilities I can't determine if ZoC apply or not. 3. It sucks to burn. Since you may not move into a hex on fire, we didn't allow units to attack units in a fire hex. Later I couldn't find support for this interpretation in the rules, but I still think it is a fair ruling. Anyone that can give a definitive answer to this question: can you attack a burning unit? 4. Holding the bridges. Since no objective tokens are placed in the bridge hexes during setup I think there is room for different interpretations as to how these hexes are controlled. OK, if I assume that Mr Kouba hasn't made a mistake and there is a reason that no objective tokens are placed on the bridges, my conclusion is that some other rules must govern these objectives. But what rules? There are none. We played it like this: You had to have a unit present in the bridge hex in order to control it. No unit, no control. (This really sucked for the Starks as they had to leave a babysitter on the stone bridge). Now, I'm perfectly aware that we could have played it altogether wrong. Please enlighten me in that case.
  15. OK, it is possible to capture him, but toughness is still a great ability. I could need some help from you guys in figuring out one thing though. Toughness/cover negates hits whenever a unit takes damage. But does the damage from direct hits and damage from blocked retreats count as a single "event" or as two separate events for the purpose of toughness/cover? For example, if Rickard Karstark takes two hits from a single attack, and then also two extra hits due to two flag results from the same attack (oh yes, and he can't retreat), does his unit take 2 or 3 hits in total? I would bet on 3 hits but I believe the rules aren't 100% clear.
×
×
  • Create New...