Jump to content

maxam

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    806

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by maxam

  1. Posted

    I struggle to read them on the cards and have had to learn by memory - colours on the card for the runes would be nice, but I appreciate that background colours and colour blindness of users could be a problem.

    If the runes were less "fiddly" and more a straight Triangle, Circle, Square without added cruft they would be soooo much more legible on the cards.

  14. Posted

    5 hours ago, Zetan said:

    Even with the battlements, I'm not sure this makes sense.  If this is the way it works (and I agree that RAW supports this) it means that if there's a unit or terrain element in the way, you can't see the unit up on the battlements, but if there isn't, you can.  Battlements wouldn't do that; they would make the unit up there harder to hit regardless of what was between them.

    You're absolutely right - D'Oh! I wrote my reply at 3:30am, and definitely had cover confused with LOS!

    Quote

    Yeah, I think this RAW interpretation is hard to argue with.  I was wanting to create terrain that would be painful (but still possible) to move through (like lava or whatever) but I guess I can either houserule that starting your turn there does the damage again or make it occupancy 0 and just say that nobody's actually willing to walk through that.

    Yeah, hopefully there will be terrain released in the future with new keywords that will cover this, but until then we have to house rule(!)

    Quote

    As @Klaxas said, the rules allow the unit to be removed from the board... actual position of the unit inside terrain doesn't seem to be something the game wants us to track.  The way the unit can face all sides and such makes me think that we're supposed to imagine the unit spreading out to fill up the entire area of the terrain, facing outward.  If this is the case, I could see the terrain essentially losing Exposed while a unit is inside; the unit is considered to occupy the entire terrain element, so the entire terrain element now blocks line of sight.  I think the ruling we eventually get will either be this or the comical "sinking in" idea, but I'm not sure about which.

    Yeah, I think @Klaxas is right (see my response above).

  15. Posted · Edited by maxam
    additional thoughts

    6 hours ago, Klaxas said:

    the only problem with this is the unit effectively isnt on the board anymore.  it is even possible that the unit was removed from the board when it occupied the terrain and replaced by a single figure from the unit.

    Eh... the trays of miniature figures may not physically be on the game board, but the unit in the game world is still present...

    I think the intent of the rule is that the terrain in question (a swamp) is "flat" and therefore not blocking LOS ... every other piece of terrain is "raised", even if it is only a field wall.

    As i said, in the case of a swamp, I'm extremely happy to imagine a unit neck-deep in the swamp not blocking LOS ... 

    Actually considering this ... you're right ... thinking about the unit in the terrain ... if they're running about from side to side "as needed," they're effectively a skirmish formation, i.e. not presenting a unified block to LOS.

    So, in the case of the Swamp, whether they're neck deep in water or walking on it, they're not going to block LOS.

  17. Posted

    25 minutes ago, Zetan said:

    Overall, the rules are very well-written and seem to cover most situations, but I had a few things I wasn't sure about when it comes to terrain:

    Ok, so referencing 81.9...

    Quote

    1) If a model is on Elevated terrain, it ignores other units and terrain when measuring line of sight.  Does this mean that other units ignore units and terrain when targeting it as well, or is it one-way only?

    RAW, it's just the unit on the terrain ... "When a unit occupying this terrain measures line of sight, it ignores other units and terrain."

    Our only (current) example of Elevated terrain is a man-made structure with a wall/battlements, which makes sense, in terms of how the Elevated terrain works ... if a future elevated terrain was, say, a grassy hill, that would seem silly if it was not two way.

    Quote

    2) For Deadly and Taxing terrain, do units suffer any ill effects for remaining in contact with it (or even occupying it) in subsequent turns, or is it only on the initial collision?

    The rules entry for both of of these terrain types starts with "When a unit collides with this terrain" ... I think the key thing to focus on here is the word collide - RAW it would appear that the effect only happens when the unit first buts up against the terrain, not on subsequent turns.

    Of course, as far as Deadly goes, currently it's a moot point as the only deadly terrain we have cannot be occupied.

    As far as taxing goes, my head canon is it's taxing to pull up and not enter (collide, but not occupy), or move into the terrain, however miserable, but not taxing to occupy, and something of a relief to leave!

    Quote

    3) When Exposed terrain becomes occupied, does it stop being Exposed, since the unit is considered to basically take up the whole thing?  Or does the unit "sink in" and no longer block line of sight?

    RAW, I would go with the unit still blocks line of sight ... "When a unit measures line of sight, it ignores this terrain." - the key here is that it is instructed to ignore the terrain, not any occupying units.

    Having said that, with the only current "Exposed" terrain being a swamp, it amuses me no end to think of an occupying unit neck deep in water and not blocking line of sight. :lol:

    MysteriousRacerX, Budgernaut and JasonGlass reacted to this

  19. Posted

    49 minutes ago, Oloh said:

    I get it's not the same as if FFG made it, but these guys are good and do custom 6x3 mats.  I bought one specifically for this game and am very happy with the quality. 

    http://www.deepcutstudio.com/product-category/mats-size-3x6/

    I was seriously considering these - the artwork on them is great in the pictures. It would cost AUS $120 to have a 6 x 3 "mousepad" mat from these guys (including shipping to Australia).

    A 3 x 3 FFG Mat retails for AUS $80...

    Even shopping around to get a better price on the FFG mats, I'd still be ahead financially with the DeepCut and the mat would be a continuous 6 x 3, not two separate mats...

    If you've got any pictures of your mat you could share I'd certainly appreciate it!

    Muz333 reacted to this

  20. Posted

    8 minutes ago, flightmaster101 said:

    I checked they are made in the USA at an FFG facility.  

    Which begs the question: why do they put the, on the boat?

    (and before 50 people reply thinking that's a serious question, it's sarcastic and rhetorical)

    While they're printing the actual mats, they may be printing the cardboard boxes they are sold in somewhere more economical, like China...

×
×
  • Create New...