Jump to content

joopahtroopah

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About joopahtroopah

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

205 profile views
  1. Surely issues of missing legs belong under the Unit Balance thread?
  2. Definitely - I'm hoping to try a 300pt game. At 200pts there are just so many difficult sacrifices to make... I guess that's one of the things that keeps it competitive, but hey. I'd love to see a new unit category, like epic siege units, or flying units which are only available in games of a new points tier (e.g. 300pts).
  3. Yeah, I agree that there's now ambiguity between the old board game and the miniatures game, but does it matter all that much? The board game has been OOP for a while, hasn't it?
  4. I definitely prefer dropping that "Miniatures Game" in the title. Seemed goofy. Like "TheFacebook" before "Facebook"...
  5. I’d love to see one of the heroes from Descent get an appearance- and if he/she can buff the Golems somehow (as above) then all the better!
  6. These isn't a really crunchy rules change necessarily and aren't things that relate necessarily to competitive play and how it relies upon a strict set of terrain pieces, its more for the casual players, but I would like to see rules that cover a broader range of terrain types (rivers, hills, cliffs, one-off immovable objects, like massive trees) I'd also like to see rules to allow for terrain that one doesn't "collide" with and enter, but just confer some sort of effect for being in (or overlapping), such as, a marsh or hill that covers a sizeable portion of the battlefield, not just the size of a cardboard template. In other words, I'd like for this game to be playable on any kind of beautiful tabletop you can conjure, regardless of what type of scenery you put on it (without depending on house rules, e.g. "this building here isn't enterable, so we'll count it as a large rocky outcrop" etc). I think the visual appeal this adds would really help draw players to the game.
  7. Can't agree more. I played a demo game of Runewars at the UK Games Expo and the rules just clicked for me. Far more than any other tabletop game I could immediately see where the strategy is, where as 40k just felt like a war of attrition based on list building and dice rolls where terrain and positioning means nothing...
  8. Max age 15? ****. I guess I'd better stop playing.
  9. Go for it! Two cores is definitely the most effective way to dive in and have a full size force. If you can split the boxes with a friend, then perfect! I've not managed to find many players down my way (Oxfordshire), so at the moment I'm essentially collecting both Waiqar and Daqan and playing random games with whoever fancies trying it out! Btw - if you're a fan of Descent also, I've found that some of the RW minis make for great Descent stand-ins (although they're a bit larger).
  10. Might not be a terrible idea...? Wouldn't they get 4 threat by reforming with their rear to the beserkers? (ignoring the out-of-shot crossbowmen)
  11. We played a match on a 6' x 4' recently, and yeah it just took longer to engage. 10 rounds felt about right. I can imagine it might upset the game balance though (e.g. armies that like to rack up inspiration before engaging, or Ambush Predator). I would absolutely love to see a 400pt game on a 6' x 4' though :-)
×
×
  • Create New...