| Author |
Message |
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: disrupt question |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:37 pm
|
|
Replies: 23
Views: 3912
|
| I thought the last paragraph was added because it was agreed that they do take a BM if they survive a disrupt hit as the grot rule only states that the Ork formation ignores the BM for grots that are killed. I don't know the intent. I didn't write it (at least, I can't remember writing it and it is... |
|
 |
Forum: 6mm (and 8mm) Topic: Epic meets Steam Punk |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:32 pm
|
|
Replies: 56
Views: 17442
|
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: disrupt question |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:27 pm
|
|
Replies: 23
Views: 3912
|
Egads, that is terrible. I don't recall that last paragraph at all. I don't know what we were thinking when we wrote that.
There shouldn't be a BM.
The point of the FAQ is if you don't get a BM for destroying the unit, you don't get a BM for Disrupting it, either. |
|
|
Forum: Terrain Topic: Eagle busts |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:21 pm
|
|
Replies: 17
Views: 2385
|
elsmore wrote: the gargoyle type statues you might find on gate posts, or the side of the Empire State Building.
Just FYI, it's the Chrysler Building. Common mistake.
Attachment:
Chrysler_building_eagle.jpg [ 69.75 KiB | Viewed 1903 times ]
|
|
|
Forum: General Discussion Topic: Take the Quiz ... What's a Tank !? |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:06 am
|
|
Replies: 48
Views: 7176
|
I don't think that is aimed at this crowd.
Jus' sayin'.  |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ Plan |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:11 pm
|
|
Replies: 40
Views: 9491
|
| Kyrt: I can't fault anything you've said. How much do you think the "for most rules purposes" explanation should weight the considerations of whether a particular situation was inadvertently omitted, needing some sort of ad hoc rule, versus sticking with a stricter RAW? Similarly, how much... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ Plan |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:05 pm
|
|
Replies: 40
Views: 9491
|
| I'd like to keep this as a general thread discussion the FAQ and progress. If you want to argue a particular rule, please take it up in another thread. As with all the other issues, this is still a difference in interpretation. The difference of opinion here is over whether there are gaps in the WE ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ Plan |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:45 pm
|
|
Replies: 40
Views: 9491
|
stompzilla wrote: Although that one's actually more errata than an FAQ as it changes then rules rather than clarifies a rules confusion.
A clarification ALWAYS involves a "rule change" for someone because there were different interpretations. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a clarification. |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ Plan |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 40
Views: 9491
|
Right now, I only have the aircraft barging, the drop-unit-to-garrison and how sniper should work in assault on the to-do list (not counting some needed editorial work).
Are there other issues that people want added to the list? I missed quite a lot of discussion. |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Aircraft Barging - Everyone's Favorite |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:45 pm
|
|
Replies: 16
Views: 4916
|
| So... has there been any gelling of opinions on this, or are people still all over the place in terms of what kind of screening/ZoC games are allowed? |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: War Engines and DTT |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:18 pm
|
|
Replies: 11
Views: 3371
|
| And to remind people, this is in the 2012 FAQs (work in progress). Anyone who wants to discuss the point is welcome to do so. |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Planetfall and no-cargo aircrafts |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:15 pm
|
|
Replies: 8
Views: 2940
|
| I think it would be best to consider it a typo. The rules just say flat out that you have to have transport capacity to land. As far as I'm concerned, the landing rules are so wonky that letting any unit that's not explicitly allowed use them is a bad idea. Of course, if you use the "immediate ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: War Engines and DTT |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:07 pm
|
|
Replies: 11
Views: 3371
|
| My take on it is that the intro says WE count as a number of units equal to DC. That's the default. Anything when you are counting up numbers of units or there is a "per unit" effect would count DC = # of units. Or, in other words, for any aggregate effects DC = units. 1.8 dangerous terrai... |
|
|
Forum: NetEpic Topic: What sizes are titans, gargants, and superheavies? |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:57 pm
|
|
Replies: 10
Views: 3649
|
| Here's a picture Krooza made several years ago with relative scale height for all the big Ork walkers, plus the Landa and Imperial Warhound. The scale is for 40K, but it gives you all the proportions you need. Minor variations in vehicle size don't matter a lot in play. There can be some effect in a... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: Activation of Formations in Reserve in Webway/portal? |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:01 pm
|
|
Replies: 20
Views: 5581
|
| Ok Neal I have interpreted this issue like you do. Just one question what's your view on the reserve-formation-gate-usage if the formation fails their activation? Are they allowed to remain of board as part of their hold action and regroup? Or do they have to use the move option in your opinion? Wo... |
|
|
| Sort by: |