Jump to content

ForceCommander

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ForceCommander

  1. I was looking at the Carnotaurus and Velociraptors at my FLGS at lunch....I'm thinking I may do a 'pack' of dinos to terrorize the town, all mounted on a single base. Not terribly accurate I know, but I think the idea is kinda fun. Jamie
  2. Data cards aren't actually an issue, I have a quick and dirty system using contested die rolls an abbreviated stat line, and a Villager Buffet Table for determining what happens when you try to devour peasants. I'm thinking the Celestial Lion is going to be on the small side, unfortunately. Jamie
  3. Here's the deal, at our FLGS we have a birthday party with all kinds of crazy one-off games as part of the festivities. My contribution to this is "Zoo Break" wherein the exhibits at the local fantasy zoo have escaped and are rampaging through the town, eating villagers and battling each other. In the past I've used a mix of GW and Reaper monsters (the villagers have, of course, been the wonderfull townsfolk sets) but I would like to switch to all Reaper. I want roughly the same size figures, here's what I have so far: Purple Worm Turtle Dragon Lernean Hydra I'll definitely be getting the Giant Ape Lord, though he is very nearly too large. If anyone has or could post a pic with the Tyrannosaurus and a human sized fig, I would be MOST greatful While I'm asking, does the new Wyvern fit in with my other Minis? Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Jamie
  4. Hey, a topic I can help with! I LOVE Reaper stuff for BloodBowl, my Necromantic team has a lot of Reaper minis, I'm using an Eldritch Daemon for a Beast of Nurgle on my Nurgle's Rotter team, and I'm going to do a Chaos team using Reaper Beastmen. I used the new(ish) female werewolf pic for my Necromantic team, largely because the players are only Strength 3 in the game, and the other werewolves are on the 'buff' side. That said, Jean Paul is a gorgeous mini, and depending on what you use for the other players could fit in very nicely. I picked up the new(ish) male werewolf pic again but he was a bit too tall compared to my other players. The Lupine minis are fantastic, but REALLY big compared to normal BloodBowl players, they might be usefull as a Big Guy though. I really should get some pics up of the team, I'm inordinately pleased with how they came out. Jamie
  5. oo oo oo Jeff...can I build the SyRam version? It can be Wussy McRunhide Jr! Jamie
  6. Nahh, I'll just expect you to have a large enough Crusader force to have Guardian Beasts in Black, Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow.
  7. Lots of good Terran units in the pipeline, the Merlin and re-scaled Tsuiseki look awesome! I'll have to dig out my beta rules to check up on the dingo.... tho' I'll be getting 2 regardless since they look so nice. Jamie
  8. I am SO buying these. Not that I need them for anything, or that I can use them for any of the games I play =) Jamie
  9. I haven't test run the 1.5 builds yet, (though I think there has been some suspicious Templar activity hear in the eastern fringes lately, right Erion?) but I REALLY liked the Samurai when I used it.... RAV 5 + wrecker = fun! My biggest problem with testing new units is that I love the Thunderbird and Warhawk SO much that it's hard to leave them out of my lists! I like using Tsuisekis as finishing units as well, especially considering the new data card. All that movement, able to deliver the payload of a front-line CAV, is a valuable tool. Jamie
  10. I'm pretty shocked that somebody would complain that the FSA for Templars is UNDERpowered. In every game that Jeff and I have played, he has COMPLETELY ruled initiative.... which is a huge, huge, huge advantage. Not that I'm complaining as a Terran player... 2 air wings per primary platoon is sweet, especially with the AWESOME Tsuiseki (please please please re-size these soon!) I kinda like the added specialist platoon, but I don't feel like we really needed it? Again, not that I'm complaining Jamie
  11. Right, get yer butt back to the PDF mine and get us Beta rules! My CAVs are getting dusty and lonely! ............................................. .................................... .......................... Pretty please Jamie
  12. At first glance, I am definitely in Camp 2, but that may be in large part due to my obscene luck with defensive fire. I do like the idea of 'pure' support CAVs, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Maybe a way to resolve it would be to add an SA that disallows defensive fire.The SA would be a negative point cost modifier; you could have 'support' CAVs that are very effective in their role but aren't suited for the front lines and also 'hybrid-support' CAVs that are more versatile but more expensive. (i.e. the support CAVs would get the SA, hybrids would not) Jamie
  13. I don't think Pat asked them to, but that is a good question. I'm still of the opinion that strikes require line of site. Jamie
  14. Yay! I am INORDINATELY pleased that my suggestion has gotten noticed by the rules folks. Now get back to rescaling tanks and gunships! Jamie
  15. @Erion: Well, assuming that there's a Thunderbird in the list I'm in. I don't roll without Wussy McRunhide Jamie
  16. Any chance that everyone who's in the mini exchange could post what kind of armies they use, or what kind of minis they like? I have my assignment, but there's just so many choices!! Jamie
  17. Well, having people anxious for a release certainly can't be a BAD thing. I think Erion is just a little bummed because we want to keep the buzz going at our FLGS, and to do that we'd like to have the latest rules build for testing. Jamie
  18. @Erion: I've been waiting on the revised Beta stuff before I begin pestering and needling you to play again. We also need to get Summy and Powell on board, just to test out the other Faction SAs if nothing else. Jamie
  19. Edited my post, thanks Saint! I'll hush up now Jamie
  20. @Freefall: Right... currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could call (4) level 1 strikes during it's activation. My proposal was that the same Platoon with 4 FIST/1 models could only call one strike per turn (since that is the highest FIST rating in the platoon) and would only have access to Allocation 1 strikes (Strafing runs, artillery strikes etc..) But a Platoon with a FIST/3 model could potentially call (3) level 1 strikes OR (1) level 2 and (1) level 1 strike OR (1) level 3 strike, whereas currently a Platoon with 4 FIST/3 units could conceivably call 4 Orbital Strikes(level 3) in one activation. My thought was that the FIST rating would represent both sophistication of electronics/gear AND the level of access that the unit would have, thus a FIST/3 unit would be authorized to use higher priority assets AND be able to co-ordinate them appropriately. I'm probably making things needlessly complicated! @Erion: Hush, you
  21. Right, I was proposing per Platoon, not per model. I have been mulling mixed Platoons, I'm thinking it would be based on the highest FIST rating, but also include the Strike's Allocation rating. In your example the Platoon could call (3) Strafing runs OR (1) Artillery Strike and (1) Battery Strike OR (1) Orbital Strike And I still would like to see a LOS or successfull scan (similar to scanning to break stealth) before being able to call strikes. Jamie
  22. I think I'm getting myself confused here.... If an Infantry platoon of 4 stands all have FIST/1, they could call down 4 strikes in a single activation, right? Each unit would use their combat action to call the strike? Jamie
  23. How about making the FIST attribute also determine the number of strikes a platoon can call each turn? In other words, a FIST/3 unit could call 3 level 1 strikes, one level 1 and one level 2, or one level 3 strike in a turn. I'd still like to see a LOS or successfull scan requirement as well. I think artillery and assets should still be dangerous, and it seems like the threat of only one strike a turn makes them more of a nuisance. Jamie
  24. Well, you could just say that calling a Strike requires a 'target' (i.e. a model).. it isnt exactly the most realistic way to handle it...but given that alot of things in CAV are abstracted (armor, weapon strength, etc..) I'm not sure there is a beter way to deal with the issue.
  25. Spartan; so you are doing the target's ECM vs the scanner's ECM? Any other modifiers? Jamie
×
×
  • Create New...