7th ed FAQ

Moderator: Anger Worm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby VectorAWX3 » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:03 am

Hey. Sex with goats is legal in my country. If you marry the goat.
Jaghatai, on the Pale Rider event: I hop on this board to post a simple NEWCC question, end up looking at some interacial lesbian action and watch a religious meltdown. You guys know how to party!
User avatar
VectorAWX3
 
Posts: 10006
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:13 am

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby -poxous » Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:24 am

I was sitting here thinking of your flyer example with the skirmishers and you can't do it most of time. You have to hit the closest guy so you can not fly over a unit turn and hit the back side.

Most people I have faced at GTs over the last 4 years or so played 'tactical wheeling' or as I call it: by the rules :smokin
-poxous
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby AndyP » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:09 am

As I expected from a FAQ really, a few answers and some more questions.

My biggest disappointment is characters in chariots losing their armour save in combat. For all of three months characters in chariots were viable, now they're even less viable than they were in 6th.

Andy P
Duncan: I don't think you really comprehend the enthusiasm many people have for all things Potter.
User avatar
AndyP
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:34 pm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby mauleed » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:24 am

If the skirmishers are strung out and you have room to set down, you should be able to pull of that move on skirmishers.

Don't think I'd have the balls to try it, but seems legal.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby -Jarrett » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:02 am

Yes, in very specific circumstances it will work. Easily prevented, and I can't think of the last time I saw skirmishers strung out in such a way
-Jarrett
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:35 pm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby Bauhaus » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:17 am

I don't follow the skirmishers "fly over" either.

But I am happy about:

1) no more "chariot killer" charging through the 1" gap in your lines to get at the chariot in the rear.

2) no more "fleeing" units protecting other units from getting charged. I'm still not sure as to whether or not you can declare new charges against a third unit.

3) Frenzied units can no charge a fleeing unit from earlier in that combat round (as we argued before). But, that unit can now decide that it won't flee and accept the original charge. (Doesn't really change what happens against my all Khorne army except that I can't declare charges "as normal" anymore.)

I like the examples of drawing units into combat and the overall concept of maximizing models btb.

And don't forget the mantra that we're all sportsmen and we should be generous at all times!
Blood for the Blood God!
User avatar
Bauhaus
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:30 am

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby subversive » Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:20 pm

Just back from a month in Southeast Asia and finally saw the FAQ. Apparently the rules designers agreed with my "ensure" definition. I guess they don't understand english either, Ed? ;) Hell, the whole bit looks like it might have been lifted verbatim from that discussion
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby mauleed » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:39 pm

I don't know what to tell you. I can see where the mistake was made, and how they made the same mistake you did. The very fact that GW sided with you on a matter of sematics removes support for your position, not increases it.

In the end, it's simply a rules change. And it implements the result I wanted anyway: no one being allowed to declare ridiculous charges.

Of course it does it in a half assed way that will still result in the occasional argument.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby subversive » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:27 pm

Quote:
The very fact that GW sided with you on a matter of sematics removes support for your position, not increases it.

Very, very true :lol What's funny is that in a completely different section of the FAQ, they use the "reasonably sure" verbiage for describing charges. Why they didn't do that in the first place, or put it in the errata, is a little beyond me. Then again, so much they do is beyond me..
subversive
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:20 am

Re: 7th ed FAQ

Postby mauleed » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:20 pm

I like to think that they read my steady stream of insults to their skill on TWF and were so offended they refused to admit that they f'ed it up and instead implemented the chewbacca defense.
mauleed
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:23 pm

Previous

Return to Warhammer Fantasy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

cron