Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm glad to see Trampling is entering the foray, as it will allow Chariots to be sculpted. Nefsokar would be cool for those.

 

Are there rules for Residual Damage? By that I mean, how do you reckon a model takes damage when it's lit on fire? Or attacked with acid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm glad to see Trampling is entering the foray, as it will allow Chariots to be sculpted. Nefsokar would be cool for those.

 

Are there rules for Residual Damage? By that I mean, how do you reckon a model takes damage when it's lit on fire? Or attacked with acid?

 

Yup, things can be lit on fire and/or poisoned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully submit that the proper place to bring up the brokenness or missing-ness of rules is probably within a group of playtesters and then directly to Reaper via email or whatnot, as opposed to on the company's public forum.

 

As the product is still currently in beta, and as the people who are playing the beta now are testers, I think it's reasonable to expect loopholes, inconsistencies, poor spelling, and all of that fun stuff. Isn't the purpose of playtesting to detect the problems so that they can be fixed?

 

At the risk of being too aggressive, I think it's poor form and unfair to Reaper to receive their beta document so that you can test it for them, and then turn around and disparage them on their own public forum when you find errors. I know that if I were them I would feel slighted.

 

I disagree with with you. Their forum is the place to discuss this because I don't have anyone to play with. What you call disparagement, I call criticism that needs to be made. The majority of my critiques are sitting in a building word file and Gus will be the first to see them. I am excited what Warlord 2.0 is coming out with, but I am worried that it will only apeal to it's current fan base and not to new gamers.

 

My outing the deployment zone loophole was me poking at shakhak, and it was a glaring loophole that needed fixing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the first time I ventured from historical gaming into the strange new world of fantasy gaming. The first fantasy figures I painted was a group of ORKS. The first time I brought them to a game, a guy told me they were the wrong shade of green . . .

 

I enjoy gaming as a way to hang out with my friends.

 

I paint miniatures to relax.

 

I post on this forum for fun.

 

I recommend all of the above.

 

Being too serious and knowing it all is not sexy.

 

Now BKBass, he's sexy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, ok, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with me either. I merely commented that calling Teleport "broken" was hyperbole, and that the described situation was flawed based on the limitations of the spell. I never said anything about deployment zones.

 

~v

Edited by Shakandara
Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, the current version of the rules now state:

 

"After the first player chooses a side of the table for their Deployment Zone, their opponent must choose the opposite side of the board as their Deployment Zone."

 

This works for two sided games, but what if folks what a three force battle? Sorry to chime in late... but shouldn't it say sides should be agreed upon by players with a recommendation for enough distance b/w the deployment zones vs. specifying it must be across?

 

hopefully in my rush you still get the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI, the current version of the rules now state:

 

"After the first player chooses a side of the table for their Deployment Zone, their opponent must choose the opposite side of the board as their Deployment Zone."

 

This works for two sided games, but what if folks what a three force battle? Sorry to chime in late... but shouldn't it say sides should be agreed upon by players with a recommendation for enough distance b/w the deployment zones vs. specifying it must be across?

 

hopefully in my rush you still get the picture.

I have specifically left out any wording what-so-ever of playing with more than 2 players. I figure if you are playing with 3, you can easily figure it out yourself. ::):

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...