Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rules'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Reaper Discussion
    • FAQs 'n Stuff
    • News
    • Reaper General
    • Chronoscope
    • Bones Miniatures & Legendary Encounters
    • ReaperCon
  • Craft Corner
    • Show Off
    • Painting Tips & Advice
    • Works In Progress
    • Speed / Army / Tabletop Techniques
    • Shutterbug
    • Conversions, Presentation, and Terrain
    • Sculpting
    • Mini Exchanges and Paint Contests
  • Reaper Games
    • CAV
    • Warlord
  • General Discussion
    • General Fantasy
    • General Sci-Fi
    • General Modern / Historical
    • Kickstarter
    • Off-Topic Rampancy
  • The Sandbox
    • The Gathering
    • The Playing
    • Fiction, Poetry, and Other Abuses

Calendars

  • Reaper

Found 9 results

  1. Hello! I have a question on the upcoming ReaperCon this year. For the Master series paint open contest rules on the page https://reapercon.com/contestI could not find anything regarding personally designed Models that an artist 3D prints and then paints. for use as an example: That is my first attempt at a model I personally designed in Blender, and then printed, in the style of warhammer 40k, though as a mention I really like the look of the grav-flux bombard from forgeworld so I created a very close facsimile of it for my model. Under the rules I'm seeing I'm assuming that in the Painters Division it would not matter if it is 3D printed given the source of the model is not given consideration, just the prep and painting quality. However I'm curious what, if any, the ruling on 3D designed and printed models are in the Open Division. Given the rules and the scoring system, sculpted models are judged by design originality, creativity, difficulty, etc, would a custom designed 3D printed model enjoy the same criteria for judging, or would it even be welcome in this division? Arguably this could extend to the diorama and vehicle division as well given the criteria in those. I would like to argue that 3D designed and printed models should be welcome in any division; my design time alone for the model I gave as an example was clocked at 60+ hours. And while my tools and medium are different than a clay or greenstuff sculptor, I don't put any less passion or hard work into it.
  2. Well I had hoped we wouldn't have to do this but unfortuantely a couple of things didn't make it into the final book as planned. As a result we have a little bit of errata to publish. CAV: SO Errata
  3. I was looking over my collection of fabulous CAV models yesterday, and I had a thought regarding force organization (though the trigger was in fact reading CAVBoss's update in which he specifically called the Dervish an "attack" role CAV, but that's kind of beside the point): I noticed after looking over my Ritterlich CAVs that I have a radically disproportionate number of recon and fire support CAVs, making it rather difficult to build a viable force within the force org rules. In fact, without a house rule, I have no variety in my core force - it's always rhino + cataphract + something else. If I don't WANT to take rhinos, I have to get my butt down to my FLGS or over to Reapermini.com to order more Cataphracts. Furthermore, I've noticed after quite a few test games that all my forces are sort of ossifying around a core of tried-and-true attack CAVs with maybe an experimental recon or fire support or flight section. My thought, then, is: what if forces were deployed around different role types instead of attack? That is, what if I decided I wanted to play a "Fire Support Company" versus a "Recon" company - the rule being that I have to have more squads with the role of fire support than any other role? Lest this sound like an attempt to build cheesy boomy-shooty armies, please know I am tipping my hat to CAV's overall sense of balance - if I were to field an army of Tiamat's, I have little doubt I'd wind up pounded in to paste as soon as my opponent got within range! For a loose example: I decide I want to run a recon company consisting of four squadrons - this simply means that two of those squadrons must be Type = Recon instead of the usual limitation in which two squadrons must bey Type = Attack. This even has some fluff potential, I think, with key factions preferring their own TOEs: Rach would be attack, of course, but Terrans might be flight or artillery; Malvernis might be Infantry; Adon might be Recon. Just a thought I wanted to share with the group to see what happens.
  4. I was little surprised not to find a post about this one: Cretacea: The game of gargantuan survival It is a rule set to play skirmish games with Dinosaurs. Sadly no minis. It is 1:100, but I'm sure it should be possible for 28-32mm, too.
  5. Inspired by the CAV Kickstarter, over the past couple of months I have frequently alluded to and shared portions of my attempt to improve upon the CAV 2 rules as they were left following the Rage Chronicles ’08 public beta. Utilizing an early draft of rules changes proposed by Mil-Net and drawing heavily on old forum discussions of known problems and possible solutions, I have overhauled several portions of the rules and expanded others. This project has now reached the point where there is little more I can do without feedback on the numerous changes, and so I would like to present to you the CAV 2.M Beta. CAV 2.M Beta [zip] EDIT: Link dead. Find the latest version HERE. EDIT: Links removed as per Reaper's request. PM me if you're looking for the latest files. The download consists of an errata document, in the style of Rage Chronicles ’08, and data cards for all models with the exception of the War for Sale army lists and those with the Unique SA from Shards. I would be happy to provide any of the excluded cards if there is demand for them, and they will of course be included in the final release. My intention following the testing is to produce a full rulebook incorporating the changes and improving on the layout and presentation. Please post any feedback in this thread; actual playtest results/battle reports would be most valuable, but all input is welcome! Thoughts on the assignment of abilities and point values would also be helpful, given the abundance of new SAs and the increased relevance of EXP, TC, and EDV values. Due to the sheer number of models I had to work through, the data cards could probably do with some refinement, and improving balance and internal consistency will be a major focus leading up to the final version. Throughout this project, I have relied heavily on several members of the Mil-Net community. My thanks to all of you for providing the groundwork for this project, and especially for the assistance in developing the new point calculator. The M designation is in honor of Mil-Net and all they've done for the CAV community.
  6. This general line of questioning came up around our table when we started firing overcharged PBGs at one another and, inevitably, started rolling some "burnouts," that is, overheats (1 on 1D6) and weapon failures (snakeyes). As previously discussed in a different thread, we know that if I go "out of ammo" when firing a Salvo, then the entire weapon system is shut down, e.g. if my Chancellor fires all 4 MACs and runs out of ammo, then all four MACs are disabled. I infer, then, that if I fire those four MACs individually (we call this a "volley"), then if I run out of ammo for one, then I run out of ammo for all. Are the above points true / similar / identical for weapon overheat or failure? That is, if my Tyrant fires all 4 PBGs in a Salvo and overheats, are ALL PBGs shut down for one round? If I burnout (snakeyes) are they ALL disabled? Same goes for firing multiple weapons in a volley - if instead of firing my Ogre's 3 PBGs in a Salvo for improved accuracy, I instead fire a volley, and roll snakeyes on my first shot, does that disable all PBGs or just one? Thanks in advance for the clarification! My group and I are working on a more thorough list of FAQs, but we need still more study of the rules and a few more games under our belts first!
  7. I got my Book today! Woot. Comparing it to the CAV: SO preview PDF I see that the book went through some MAJOR rethinking. //Graphic design is much better by the way. // So now, what about a PDF version? Thoughts? Plans? Will come free for KS backers?
  8. Ok, folks, I've been on the Reaper forums for about a day now and it has become entirely too obvious that there is an unspoken set of ridiculous rules, jokes, and other shenanigans associated with being present here. And boy does it seem like fun. In time, I'm sure I'll discover my own laws of the Reaper forum universe, but until then how does one become streetwise here? Lay down some truth!
  9. I looked but did not see a list of guidelines or rules for submissions for the paint competition for Reapercon. I know that only all reaper miniatures are eligible for a Sophie, but what are the categories this year and are their any rules for submissions? I heard a rumor that there will not be an ordinance section this year? Also I am asking about rules because I have some ideas but some may consider them... bending the line of decency. Remember, I paint next to Martin at Paint club... :) Just wanted to make sure that there were no offensive dioramas submitted or over the top paints. Thanks, Xanderhook