Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Nagash is a powerhouse. Ad a lodestone CC and a Necromancer and you have enough power to make skellies and zombies pretty much steamroll forward unless the enemy have good cunning plans to counter...
trumpeters
Models in this unit may be Trumpeters. A unit that includes any Trumpeters can shoot and charge in its turn even
if it ran during its movement phase.
So can I move, run, shoot and charge? Seems a bit excessive. I guess I can only shoot or charge, despite the ambiguous wording.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Edit: oh I see all units can shoot and charge anyway!
I also just noticed, units in combat (I.e. Within 3") can shoot in the shooting phase and then make an attack in the combat phase too!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/04 20:32:55
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Not true, any model can shoot and charge in the same turn. Unless that's an outrider special rule?
Rihgu wrote: No, you can run shoot AND charge. Might seem excessive, but the wording isn't ambiguous at all.
Yes, that was how we played it despite my doubt. It just seems that the focus of the sentence is to show that having the trumpeter allows the unit to ignore the run penalties, but it inadvertently allows the unit to ignore the penalty for shooting which is not being able to charge.
Not true, any model can shoot and charge in the same turn. Unless that's an outrider special rule?
You're right! My mistake. And units in a melee (in 3") can also shoot in the shooting phase!
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
BomBomHotdog wrote: Dark Riders with Corsairs look like a fun combo. Shoot and charge in your Corsairs and keep the combat within 14" of the Riders. If your opponent rolls a 1 for battleshock you get to add d6 to the roll. Then the Corsairs can force another model to flee on a 6 for every model in the unit that flees.
Corsairs (and jack-of-all-trades models in general) are going to do well I think.
Honestly, the scrolls seem to work fairly well, just use wounds to represent points: "let's play a 200 wound game. I'm running two bloodthirsters and X bloodcrushers, XX bloodletters, 20 warriors of Khorne and two blocks of 20 marauders and a skull cannon. 200 wounds on the dot. What did you bring?" I'm gonna give it a try! If it works, it has the potential to be an awesome ruleset. Remember, "simpler" doesn't mean "worse". Instead of memorizing tons of crap, you can really focus on a synergistic army. Just roll your eyes at things like a Slaanesh champion's "enthralling gaze" that makes models worse if your opponent meets your gaze *eyeroll*.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, the scrolls seem to work fairly well, just use wounds to represent points: "let's play a 200 wound game. I'm running two bloodthirsters and X bloodcrushers, XX bloodletters, 20 warriors of Khorne and two blocks of 20 marauders and a skull cannon. 200 wounds on the dot. What did you bring?" I'm gonna give it a try! If it works, it has the potential to be an awesome ruleset. Remember, "simpler" doesn't mean "worse". Instead of memorizing tons of crap, you can really focus on a synergistic army. Just roll your eyes at things like a Slaanesh champion's "enthralling gaze" that makes models worse if your opponent meets your gaze *eyeroll*.
Wounds dont work.... Unit size + Number of Scrolls do.
I want to try the game before I pass judgement. It looks fun and silly and I long ago saw the writing on the wall. I told my group years ago that GW was trying to kill tournaments with their games and was scoffed at. I did not expect them to take the nuclear option though and ruin all ability to play seriously.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 00:44:30
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
It wasn't a point Mel, he was trying to make a joke .
Wulfrik gives you re-rolls if you be insulting and shock your opponent. Shoving a model up someone's behind is a sure way to shock them .
God of all the silly rules Wulfrik's is the worst...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Honestly I think he was successful with his joke, you just failed to understand it. Not that I can blame you for not knowing Wulfrik's rule since you don't like AoS.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
Yes, there are a lot of silly new rules. Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you. GW, purposely or not, has set up an opportunity to be creative in a multitude of ways. Your negativity, while it is your right to express it, is not constructive. Embrace your opportunities. Create your own fixes. Or, don't play. GW won't be missing your business (they've made that abundantly clear).
I am excited to make an entire list of Corsairs lead by Fellheart with an accompaniment of trees lead by Groot (Treeman). The scenarios my opponent and I can come up with are endless. And, most importantly, fun.
You really are desperate to deny people the benefit of using the full extent of their army's rules so that you can win, aren't you?
Whoosh, right over your head.
You had no point, and continue to have no point.
How minor a bonus might be is irrelevant. Arbitrarily denying that bonus to groups of players while granting it to others who play the exact same army-- in fact, the exact same units-- is, to put it nicely, being a massive dick. This is pointless jerkassery and I don't have any obligation to respect it.
Yes, there are a lot of silly new rules. Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you. GW, purposely or not, has set up an opportunity to be creative in a multitude of ways. Your negativity, while it is your right to express it, is not constructive. Embrace your opportunities. Create your own fixes. Or, don't play. GW won't be missing your business (they've made that abundantly clear).
I am excited to make an entire list of Corsairs lead by Fellheart with an accompaniment of trees lead by Groot (Treeman). The scenarios my opponent and I can come up with are endless. And, most importantly, fun.
Have an exalt!
Thought for the day: It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
Before you play, ask your opponent "can we not abide by any 'beard rules'?" It's that simple. Do powergamers not know how to, like, discuss things w/ people in real life?
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
Melissias comments were a little unnecessary, and reeked of Sarkeesian ideology. Misconstruing something silly and un serious as something it is not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 17:17:53
Thought for the day: It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
I have read the entire thread. While the opening may have been directed at an individual, the rest was targeted at the collective bubble of group-think that has plagued this game since before its release. GW owes us nothing and we are entitled to nothing. We have our expectations, which are under no obligation to be filled. And please direct me to the precedent set by GW that they make anything "fair". I can point you to many instances to the contrary.
The fact that, in order to have a fair and fun game, you have to houserule away stupid arbitrary crap is proof that the elements you had to houserule away were bad game design.
Which is kind of the point. I don't really have all that strong of feelings about the rest of the rules-- I could take or leave them. There might even be a good game somewhere in there that I could enjoy.
But.
This particular part annoys me enough that I don't really see a reason to expand my Dwarf army beyond the squad of thunderers and thane that I currently have-- and I was actually hoping to get in to WHFB after wanting to for such a long time. I love the feel of the medieval gunners in the Empire and Dwarves armies, aesthetically speaking.
But if this is the type of rules GW is going to give my Dwarves, explicitly saying I'm not allowed to play my dwarves the same way others do because of genetics, I'm certainly not going to give money to them by buying more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbad wrote: Melissia's comments were a entirely necessary
If you have a rational objection to what I have said, go say it instead of being passive-aggressive about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 17:20:02
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote: The fact that, in order to have a fair and fun game, you have to houserule away stupid arbitrary crap is proof that the elements you had to houserule away were bad game design.
Which is kind of the point. I don't really have all that strong of feelings about the rest of the rules-- I could take or leave them. There might even be a good game somewhere in there that I could enjoy.
But.
This particular part annoys me enough that I don't really see a reason to expand my Dwarf army beyond the squad of thunderers and thane that I currently have-- and I was actually hoping to get in to WHFB after wanting to for such a long time. I love the feel of the medieval gunners in the Empire and Dwarves armies, aesthetically speaking.
But if this is the type of rules GW is going to give my Dwarves, explicitly saying I'm not allowed to play my dwarves the same way others do because of genetics, I'm certainly not going to give money to them by buying more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbad wrote: Melissia's comments were a entirely necessary
If you have a rational objection to what I have said, go say it instead of being passive-aggressive about it.
I was on your side in the beginning of this thread. But you are taking something that is completely un-serious, and AFICT a JOKE and turning it into a promotion of patriarchal ideals or something like that.
I understand women feel marginalized in the gaming community, but to say that a joke is preventing you from doing something you love... is silly.
do you need to go to a university safe room?
Do the rules need to come with a trigger warning?
I'm not trying to be an ass, but you've been unreasonable.
Thanks
Austin
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 17:33:43
Thought for the day: It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself
blackforge wrote: Yes, somethings are not clearly hashed out. If you are looking for "competitive" play, this isn't the game for you (you can pick up literally any edition rulebook and play any rule set that suits you). If you want everything cut and dry with zero creative thought outside of list building, this game isn't for you.
Read posts. Don't skim over them and then reply to what you think you read. Melissa was referring to some of the (stupid) "fun" rules being impossible to use for some players. That has (similarly to AoS in general) nothing to do with "competitiveness", that's unfairness.
I have read the entire thread. While the opening may have been directed at an individual, the rest was targeted at the collective bubble of group-think that has plagued this game since before its release. GW owes us nothing and we are entitled to nothing. We have our expectations, which are under no obligation to be filled. And please direct me to the precedent set by GW that they make anything "fair". I can point you to many instances to the contrary.
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
As someone that; has a mustache and beard, is younger than most of my group, is good at staring contests, and can do all the other silly rules I am not effected by them so much. This was not due to my gameplay skills or superior planning. I was simply born with the randomly correct chromosomes, at a later year than my group, and I like having facial hair. None of this should give me game advantages. That is all Melissia is saying. It is unfair for no reason in a game that costs quite alot of money to play.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
8k points
3k points
3k points
.
.
