Jump to content

bumyong

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bumyong

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, that's me. And your first mini looks great! Did it take you very long?
  2. Thanks for the comparison. Although the Army Painter Quickshade in the dropper bottles is different from their dip: Water based bottles: Varnish based dip: A comparison between Minwax and the Quickshade varnish-based dip would be more helfpul. Varnish takes a lot longer to dry than the water-based stuff.
  3. Yeah, this would be a great option. It's one thing to pay $10 for one X-wing ship in order to get an upgrade card but it's another deal to have to pay $20 or more for an expansion box just to get another copy of one you already have! If I have to do that, I think I'll pass on tournament play. I've appreciated that FFG has posted and allowed scans of their cards to be public so that for casual play, you can just print them out rather than having to buy expensive expansions. This open business model makes me want to support them and to make actual purchases of expansions. But the cost scale for RWM is different from X-Wing so it makes owning duplicate cards that much more expensive.
  4. Can someone who plays X-Wing or Armada chime in on this for tournament play? Do you need a separate upgrade card for each unit or can you have one upgrade card apply to multiple units? For example, if I have three 2x2 reanimate units and I have enough points to give two of them the "Metered March" upgrade, will I need two separate "Metered March" cards or can one just function for both units? I am guessing that you will need to have a card for each upgraded unit which will be a pain if I have to buy multiple cores/expansions just for more upgrade cards.
  5. I too purchased the coin capsules that someone else mentioned in another thread. $9 for 25 cases: Sure, metal would be awesome but not sure if it's $100 awesome. These coin cases give a good amount of heft to them.
  6. Yeah, see why it's confusing and needs a FAQ? Because corner-to-corner is considered unengaged, at which point exactly are you colliding when you close in? 17.1 "To close in, a unit performs a speed-1 shift action and must collide with the enemy unit it was most recently engaged with... If there is a collision with that unit, the unit squares up as normal, but other game effects that are triggered when units collide are ignored." If you are colliding with the corner of the enemy unit, then the rules from LtP Page 8 come into play (here's a photo because it is too much to quote): I know it says "If the front edge of the active unit collides with a corner..." But I would argue that these squaring up rules would still apply if you collided with your side edge. Here's an example. Let's say Ardus performs a shift-1 sideways move to collide with the corner of the Oathsworn since he knows they will get a charge bonus if he doesn't engage them this turn: As per corner collision rules, there are no other trays on either side of Ardus: Therefore, Ardus gets to choose and of course, he is going to choose to square up on the flanking side of the Oathsworn rather than putting himself into the disadvantaged position of being flanked himself! Ardus doesn't get any flanking bonus either but this is clearly the better choice: So to get back to my original question, when you START corner-to-corner, at which point are you colliding with the enemy unit when you close in? Based on how you answer this question, it is possible to pivot so that your front edge ends up squaring up so that you gain the flanking bonus, making Kari's pivot in the above example legal. This situation actually comes up quite a bit since your single-tray units (heroes and siege units) tend to burn through multi-tray grunts quickly. Until an official FAQ comes out, I am going to play so that you aren't allowed to pivot even though emotionally, I like the idea of the heroes and siege units being more powerful against grunts.
  7. Yes, siege characters replace the whole tray.
  8. Not sure if I understand your answer since only Kari is flanking and the golem and reanimates are face-to-face. Let me show you the two photos of Kari instead of the golem. Here is the situation after two reanimate trays are taken off. Let's ignore the golem for a second: Per rules, Kari should close in. I know the first photo is legal but could she do the second photo and close in on the back of the reanimates and pivot so that she keeps her flanking bonus? I am thinking that she can because when she closes in, it functionally counts as a move to engage and should follow the regular rules dictating "Squaring Up From a Corner" on page 8 of LtP. Since single tray figures are equally under the range ruler, they should be able to choose which side and to pivot to square up.
  9. Found the reference. It's the bottom left diagram on page 22 of the RRG. Yes, according to the diagram, it does look like corner to corner does not count as engagement. Found the answer on another thread. One question still stands: If the Golem closes in after the reanimate tray in front of it is removed, can it choose to pivot so it is in the flanking position rather than just sliding along the front edge of the remaining reanimates?
  10. Page 21 of the RRG doesn't show a diagram. It is Optional Rules. Page 21 of the LtP is Personalizing Your Army. Which book are you talking about? EDIT: NVM. It's page 22.
  11. Your color scheme immediately made me think of the Broncos: Might want to use them for inspiration!
  12. Yes, I painted two core sets worth of Waiqar undead by dipping and foregoing any highlighting afterwards and I think they look pretty good. Especially if you spray paint a base coat of silver then with purple for cloth, white for bones and brown for the shield. I'm not joking, you can finish a whole army over the weekend this way. Click on my tutorial to see how fast and easy it is: I spend a lot more time on the Carrion Lancer but you can also dip that as well. I'm wondering based on your username if you live in the Midwest? I am in St. Louis and would totally be willing to walk you through the process and teach you using my paints with only playing a game for payment! Although full disclosure, I'm a Cardinals fan. If you are far from St. Louis, then check out your FLGS or gaming Meetup groups and I am positive that someone would be willing to give you a tutorial since most gamers (especially painters) I know are super nice and would be more than willing to help out. (At least regarding painting--expect no mercy on the field of battle!)
  13. I'm not seeing a diagram in the RRG or the LtP--reference please? I think corner-to-corner needs a FAQ because under Engagement in rule 34 it says [bold mine], "If any part of a unit's trays are touching any part of an enemy unit's trays, those units are engaged." Then 34.3b says, "If a unit is engaged only through the corner of one of its trays, the contacted edge is the edge to which the enemy unit would square up if able." (Problem with this is that corner-to-corner would make two edges viable if it is a one-tray unit attacker.) Also, if you look at 77.5 that talks about how to resolve squaring up if there are obstacles in the way this is what 77.5c says, "Repeat these resolutions for any additional obstacles. Then, if it is still impossible for the moving unit to square up without colliding with an obstacle, the unit cannot square up and it is returned to the position it was in when it collided; the two units are still touching and are thus still engaged." Here's an example of this from last night's game. I was hiding my archers behind a reanimate block but those cursed Oathsworn just barely squeaked by to clip the corner of my archers. This is not corner-to-corner as there was about a 1/4" overlap: As per rules for squaring up, the Oathsworn would normally slide over BUT because of the collision rules, can't square up. Therefore, it remains as is and gets the attack off because they are engaged. So, if you are engaged with 1/4" contact, why not with corner-to-corner? Especially since it is possible to collide into something with just your corner and remain engaged if you can't square up?
  14. But aren't they still technically "engaged" with the reanimates since the corners are touching? If not, then can the Golem and Kari choose which side they square up on? (It would be advantageous for both of them to flank rather than the golem remaining front-to-front.)
  15. This situation came up last night in our game and we had some questions that arose. My remaining reanimates were facing a Rune Golem and was being flanked by Kari: The round ended with two trays of reanimates getting wiped out: At the top of the next round, both Kari and reanimates have initiative 4. Let's first assume if the Waiqar side has the turn marker and therefore goes first. 77.5 third paragraph says, "If, after revealing its command tool, an active unit is engaged with a single enemy unit but not aligned with that enemy, the active unit attempts to square up with that enemy unit." So in this example, since the reanimates are engaged with two enemy units, it must remain as is, correct? And can choose to attack either Kari or the Golem since they remain engaged with both of them? That's the way I'm reading the rules. Let's say though that Kari isn't in the picture. Does that mean the reanimates would then get a free shift in order to square up with the golem like this? I'm wondering because 77.1 says to square up a unit means to slide the front edge "stopping at the first opportunity for the trays of the moving unit to be aligned with the trays of the enemy unit." I took this to mean then that the reanimates would shift over. But then, 77.1b attempts to clarify what it means to be "aligned": "The trays of two units are aligned when the edges of trays--or seams between trays--of the first unit that are perpendicular to its contacted edge line up and are parallel with the edges of trays--or seams between trays--of the second unit that are perpendicular to its contacted edge (i.e. the edges and seams of the units' trays form a grid)." After reading this about ten times, I think it means that the reanimates were already aligned even though only the corner was touching the golem so it would just remain as is without the free shift. Is that how you all read it? Okay, now let's assume that the Daqan have the first-player marker so Kari goes before the reanimates. Since she is touching the corner of the reanimates, is she allowed to choose whether she squares up on the side or the back? Remaining on the side would mean she wouldn't need to pivot: But is this squaring up just as valid even though she will pivot? This will be moot if she is already aligned and therefore doesn't get to move at all and remains touching only on the corner. But if she were to use a shift action, could she go either direction, especially the move in the last photo so she could maintain her flanking bonus?
×
×
  • Create New...