Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Old school!
92
Conventions / Re: Battleground Big Game Events at Dexcon in Morristown NJ July 6-7
« Last post by Karasu on July 03, 2018, 09:47:20 AM »
Have a good time.  It would be nice to come, but there's an Atlantic in the way.

Always the same excuse with you and it's getting old.....

Just kidding!  Thanks for the well wishes and we'll do out best  :)

Last time I was in the states was Gencon '94...
93
Have a good time.  It would be nice to come, but there's an Atlantic in the way.

Always the same excuse with you and it's getting old.....

Just kidding!  Thanks for the well wishes and we'll do out best  :)
94
Faction Discussions / Re: Dwarf Units and Tactics
« Last post by Hannibal on July 03, 2018, 09:35:17 AM »
Anyway, I would like to propose that this is a poor way of doing things. 

No argument from me there.  I was just stating that when there is an unclear rule and you want to figure out the writer's intent, the best way to do is to look at other things they have written.

I think an easier way to say it is to limit Sprint and the Hills rules to units that have the Rune of Uruz checkbox.  That way you can achieve the same effect (limiting it to "Dwarves") without adding a mostly empty keyword.
95
Conventions / Re: Battleground Big Game Events at Dexcon in Morristown NJ July 6-7
« Last post by Karasu on July 03, 2018, 08:59:48 AM »
Have a good time.  It would be nice to come, but there's an Atlantic in the way.
96
Conventions / Re: Battleground Big Game Events at Dexcon in Morristown NJ July 6-7
« Last post by GoIndy on July 03, 2018, 08:58:13 AM »
I'd like to, but no way in the world am I making it. 
97
Faction Discussions / Re: Dwarf Units and Tactics
« Last post by Karasu on July 03, 2018, 03:02:33 AM »
Where does it say that Antonian horseman aren't Dwarves?  Certainly not in the rules text of the unit, because the race of units is never in rules text.  I was always under the impression that faction abilities apply to all units in the faction, unless the unit specifically says they don't.  The Antonian Horsemen card calls out that they are unable to use the Rune of Uruz but remains silent on the ability to ignore move penalties for hills.

I agree it's not clear at all, and frankly I think someone could easily make the point as you have.  However, compare that with Ravenwood where it explicitly states "Elves of Ravenwood units" and not "Elves."  They did that just to drive home that all units in faction (Elf or not) gets the bonus.
Who says that any random player is going to have the Elves of Ravenwood army as well as Dwarves of Runeguard?  Or maybe the templating meant that there needed to be some words saved so that the rules could fit it all on the card?
Anyway, I would like to propose that this is a poor way of doing things.  Anything which is relied upon to make a ruling must appear in the rules text somewhere.  If the Antonians are not meant to benefit from better overhill movement, say it on their card.  Make the wording, "does not benefit from Faction Abilities" rather than "Cannot use Rune of Uruz" and, just to avoid doubt, unless there are keywords involved, always refer to the Faction by their full name in their Faction abilities.

Quote
The artwork for starters. 

I'd be really leery of using the artwork as precedent for the rules.  It just opens up way too many cans of worms.  I mean someone could look at the Salvaged Terracotta Warriors and say "Look at all those spears in the unit.  That's clearly got to get the Spear bonuses and it must be a typo that they didn't put it in."

Or, as I would argue in the case of the Antonians, it is a well known fact that humans produce individuals who are exceptionally tall or short for their species.  It would make sense for a group who generally have difficulty riding to recruit their exceptionally tall individuals, known as antonians, into their only cavalry corps.  The art just proves it, since those dwarves are tall enough to ride :).
That's without even bringing up Carrot. :D
98
Faction Discussions / Re: Dwarf Units and Tactics
« Last post by Hannibal on July 02, 2018, 04:57:11 PM »
I'd say that artwork is legit for discerning the intent of the faction developer,

Yes, because when we think about art, the entire human species agrees that it is a form of expression lacking any subjectivity whatsoever and in fact there is only ever ONE possible interpretation of the the artist's intent and that intention is completely obvious to the viewer.

 the entire human species easily agrees with the sentiment of "Ah, here's a form


Quote
Similarly, that intent is relevant, since the faction developer put in the prices including any surcharges/discounts.

Yeah and there's never been typos before.  I know you put in the modifiers, and you know you did.  But the average person cracking the box may not know that the proof reading was done properly.


Quote
As to the Salvaged, yeah OK 11 out of 26 of the units on the front of the card have spears and the other 15 don't.  That's still a non-spear majority, and with fractional bonuses not a thing you have to roll with "not a  spear unit."  (Adding that, as implied by the back of the card, a good number of salvaged are missing an arm, or whatever else, suggesting that some % of those with spears aren't getting full use out of their weaponry.)

Spears especially are very visible on the top down, because they have a long profile.  They are usually held pointing towards the front in such a way that we can see the entire length of them.  That attracts the eye and gives them an outsized effect.  This is something to keep in mind when you're doing art direction.  For the same reason any horse models will be visible, which is why people routinely think the Lord of Dusk unit where the center guy is mounted is a cavalry unit.

This is a case of you being too close to the faction when it comes to art design is biasing your opinion.  You designed it, so you KNOW it's not a spear unit.  But the guy who just cracked the box?  He asks me at a demo.  Not that that's ever happened to me.....
99
Faction Discussions / Re: Dwarf Units and Tactics
« Last post by Kevin on July 02, 2018, 04:08:44 PM »
I'd say that artwork is legit for discerning the intent of the faction developer, given that the developer of the faction works directly with the artist.  Similarly, that intent is relevant, since the faction developer put in the prices including any surcharges/discounts.

As to the Salvaged, yeah OK 11 out of 26 of the units on the front of the card have spears and the other 15 don't.  That's still a non-spear majority, and with fractional bonuses not a thing you have to roll with "not a  spear unit."  (Adding that, as implied by the back of the card, a good number of salvaged are missing an arm, or whatever else, suggesting that some % of those with spears aren't getting full use out of their weaponry.)
100
Faction Discussions / Re: Dwarf Units and Tactics
« Last post by Hannibal on July 02, 2018, 01:50:09 PM »
Where does it say that Antonian horseman aren't Dwarves?  Certainly not in the rules text of the unit, because the race of units is never in rules text.  I was always under the impression that faction abilities apply to all units in the faction, unless the unit specifically says they don't.  The Antonian Horsemen card calls out that they are unable to use the Rune of Uruz but remains silent on the ability to ignore move penalties for hills.

I agree it's not clear at all, and frankly I think someone could easily make the point as you have.  However, compare that with Ravenwood where it explicitly states "Elves of Ravenwood units" and not "Elves."  They did that just to drive home that all units in faction (Elf or not) gets the bonus.


The artwork for starters. 

I'd be really leery of using the artwork as precedent for the rules.  It just opens up way too many cans of worms.  I mean someone could look at the Salvaged Terracotta Warriors and say "Look at all those spears in the unit.  That's clearly got to get the Spear bonuses and it must be a typo that they didn't put it in."
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]