Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by abngi

  1. It's a known bug, with no current workaround. I corresponded with the data file author a couple months back; he has let the program authors know.
  2. Agreed - sorry I got off topic with my usual crusade. I have a 2nd printing on order - when it arrives, I will be doing a page-by-page check.
  3. Just remember the difference between being Undead and having SA: Undead. Something could very well be a brought-mostly-back-to-life, but for game purposes is not intended to be Fearless, or is immune to Holy Light (which only effects Undead). Fluff vs Mechanics.
  4. Also note the point of the system: promote the game. You get more points for playing in a store, and you get zero points for playing with your buddy in your home (in most cases). Why? Because Reaper knows that the growth of the game is dependant on the perception that it is widely played, and the way to foster that perception is to encourage it's visible play. Same for getting support points for art or painting - painted figs increase the appearance of the game, and folks are more likely to play when their figs are painted. As for the number of games, the Russians had a saying: "Quantity has a quality all of it's own." That's why for competitive purposes, I would like to see a weighted and scaled system that actually measures my performance (Warden gave a good example).
  5. There have been a lot of "where do I buy it?" topics lately. My recommendation: www.froogle.com is a partner site to Google, but lists sale sites instead of generic web sites. Take it for a test spin, you can find suspended gold flake paints, 16-year old scotch, etc...all the stuff that has been posted as requests lately.
  6. The perspective I use for the WHQ ranking is that it is evaluating your participation in the "Warlord Experience". However, some folks like to measure themselves against others, either directly or indirectly. Surely out there somewhere is an online resource that could do a ranking system, a chess-type if nothing else. The drawback is that players would have to register on yet another site...but if they want to be competitive, that is the price. I like the idea, personally. I like it enough that if somebody wants to implement and administer a competitive ranking system, I will kick in a Reaper dragon of their choice (must be a standardized and semi-automated system...PM me with a proposal if you are interested.) A word of warning, though, to those who take their win/loss record seriously: I will be returning to the States in about 6 weeks, and plan to tear up the Warlord circuit something fierce. (smack talk is still free, after all...)
  7. The original had the comma elsewhere - it used to be "if the enemy rolls higher than the Crusader, it is not slain...".
  8. Ofentimes, hospitals outsource medical transcriptionists - the people who type up the notes that doctors record. Contact a local medical center to get pointed in the right direction.
  9. Yep, a solo that can hang out in an Elite slot. However, I believe you are thinking of Adepts, which are limited to one each until you hit the 2009 point mark - elites don't have that limitation. Solos, also are not limited (other than the one per leader in the force) unless they are Unique.
  10. Sure, there is a market share - for minis with rules. I believe all your examples have text behind the metal... When considering market share, you also have to consider what the retailers are willing to stock. They have a finite amount of capital, and when given a choice between SF minis to stock, they will go for the with-viable-rules minis every time.
  11. You were correct, beacuse no such requirement exists. -hammer, yes. -lord, no. What a difference a few letters makes...
  12. My personal opinion, developed by wargaming the statistics (using the math rather than the dice to ensure a standard level of performance): archer-heavy armies in general were not broken, but Elven ones were. First, though, I need to define my "broken": Something that gives more performance than the points are worth, or something to which there is no reasonable counter. If Vale Archers cost 20 points, they would be clearly broken. If they cost 80, they would be clearly not. Somewhere in between is the fair cost. For the points, I think the Elfs are about right. The second definition is tested by taking things to the extreme, and constructing a grid with relevant factors. For example, across the top would be the opposition type, with horde/standard/anti-archer as the columns. The rows would list terrain, with open/standard/close as the types. The forces are built using the best you can think of, while the terrain is abstracted to indicate how many turns of firing the archers get. I won't go into the whole math chain, as that would be off topic, but the statistics show that the Vale Archers have about a 7/9 superiority for their worst opponents (Templars with LMA), 8/9 for opponents with flyers-o-plenty or good archers, and and roughly 9/9 against everyone else; this is primarily due to the +3 RAV at 30" and Marksman. Everyone else with long range or multiple shots maxes at +2, so do not get a chance to overstack the odds prior to melee engagement. The sure shot is icing. Bottom line? You can develop consistent counters to a force with one maxed Vale Archer troop, but not to one with two. I believe the Vales should legitimately be Adept, but the others don't need to be to maintain balance. Now, how does this relate to the topic? The Freelancers don't have a new advantage, because the only statistical advantage was with the Elves, and Elven forces have the same Adept limitation that everyone else does. If the Freeks go with different combos of archers, the +2 RAV cap gives their opponents options to counter an archer-heavy force. Now, I said I wouldn't go into the math, but here's the basis (to prevent a million questions): against DV 12 (the best standard grunt DV against ranged), RAV+3 is twice as effective as RAV+2. Against hordes it doesn't matter as much, because of the lower DVs, but the hordes aren't twice the size of the top-notch forces...
  13. Your title is indeed changed as your post count increases, but my advice is to utterly disregard it. Over time, you will learn the quality posters, and if they have a high post count, it is coincidental. The likelyhood of a prolific poster also being a quality one is much better here on the Reaper boards than most boards I have seen, because the "environmental" quality here is better than most, but there are also those who do a lot of "me too" posts purely to inflate their post count. My advice is that rather than just say "me too" or "I like it", say why. That way you voice your support/opposition in a useful way. To provide you with an unsolicited grain of salt to go with my unsolicited advice, however, the preceeding is merely my opinion. Go out and enjoy the board!
  14. Everything you need to use them is in the Errata & Clarifications.
  15. Almost; each Adept type will only only appear in one unit, but you can have multiple types of adept ( leader + 2 Bull Orc Archers + 2 Skeeters + 2 Isiri Archers etc...) in a single troop.
  16. Yep - the way Matt wrote it. There are other exceptions coming up, however. In the Necropolis book, for example, there are sub-factions that remove specific additional restrictions; an all-Vamp force with a specific leader gets an extra vampire adept unit, an all-undead gets a unit un-adepted (for lack of a more concise term), etc. Details are in Necropolis Thule...
  17. WHICH, BY THE WAY, I noticed nobody brought me. I spent months laying the seed sand planting hints. See if I give you any sneak peeks of any cool stuff now. Actually, Bryan, I brought a Hot Wing wrapper and put it on the table next to you on Saturday - figured it was kharmic to return tease for tease. Just as kharmic that all that planning to be mean didn't get noticed. Back on topic, what is the maximum occupancy for ReaperCon? And what, in people's opinion, would encourage more people to attend?
  18. So have another model offer Mercy. Nothing says the model has to be base-to-base, just that you have to be in the troop that did the damage. I can see this being hit by the errata stick, but until then, pick another guy to make the offer.
  19. Reach doesn't mean you have a polearm, though most models with Reach have polearms. It just means you have a special melee buff ability.
  20. Well, doing a Google search for "rackham hybrid rules in english" brings up a bazillion sites. For a summary of Hybrid, try here.
  21. Scheduled for release later are Templar Heavy Cavalry, Ivy Crown Light Lancers, and Onyx Zephyrs.
  22. my personal preferences: I'd rather keep the same point value throughout. Straight rulebook force composition rules is great. One-on-one is good. For table setup, I like to have each pair of players set up a table, but not play on the one they set up. You get to see some interesting setups that way. Final rounds, though, should be very similar tables; nobody likes to get hosed by an unlucky table assignment. Single-elimination is rough. With 5 rounds, that's an entire day of gaming you have to set aside, only to be bumped in the first round. If Warlord is all that is going on, no problem, you can do pick-up games. At a convention, it becomes a time management risk for the players. How about the first two or three games use cumulative points to determine those that advance? That way everyone has multiple games, and your table usage numbers stay the same. It also allows for people to bow out after three games, if they don't have all day available, without messing up the brackets.
  23. My take on it: It's not a "if I spare you, will you fight for us?" question, it's a magical thing. The blow is indeed fatal, but accepting the light brings you back from the edge.
  24. What exactly is it that makes people think the back-to-back bonus situation is cheesy? Look at real combat: you get flanked, you're toast, unless someone is there to cover you. Look at real melee: you put your back to a wall when outnumbered. Look at movie life: how many times do you see the heroes NOT go back-to-back and survive? If you were out with a buddy in a danger zone, would you split up to check the shadows? Obviously, I don't have a problem with the mutual buff party. What I can'f figure out is why an extra +1 buff that you are paying skill points to get so hard to accept?
  25. For what it's worth, this is the fourth time this subject has been discussed. There is only one person who can decide "designer's intent" - the designer. Unless he issues an errata, does anyone have a rule reference that would invalidate the back-to-back bonus situation?
  • Create New...