| Author |
Message |
Forum: NetEA Squats Topic: Squat special rule: Spotter |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 3:44 pm
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 4194
|
| Lots of good ideas bouncing around. I like the WE-only idea. ============== Doomsday Cannon - Give them all Indirect. The only concern I have is the idea that you might end up with a good blitz guard, but that's not exactly out of character as long as it can be balanced. Or if that won't work, maybe... |
|
 |
Forum: NetEA Squats Topic: Squat special rule: Spotter |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 8:56 pm
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 4194
|
| 90cm seems way off to me. I think that depends on several factors. 1) How many spotters are present. Obviously, more present will generate a lot more lines of sight for spotting formations. 2) What other abilites spotters have. A 90cm Skimmer/Spotter popped up on OW will have few impedences from te... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Squats Topic: Squat special rule: Spotter |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 5:43 pm
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 4194
|
| Unit v Formation - I think any mechanic should work by formation, not individual unit targets. +1 to hit - I have concerns about this when it comes to long range weapons and especially artillery. +1 Sustain and +1 for Spotter is going to tear some stuff up. I'd rather see it stick with the original ... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Squats Topic: Squat special rule: Spotter |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:03 pm
|
|
Replies: 24
Views: 4194
|
| If you want to make it a more substantial feature, I'd say let it allow any IDF weapon to fire indirect on Advance as well as Sustain, not just the Doomsday (and if you really wanted to emphasize Squat "stand and deliver" you could have it apply to Marshall). It wouldn't make any differenc... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:28 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 3556
|
| FWIW I play 'in' terrain but by any part of the base, abstractions and all that. Often, some terrain pieces aren't convenient to put figures on them (buildings usually), so for those we play touching. That's pretty much what we do. If you can put it in the terrain, just put it part way in the terra... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Fortifications FAQs |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:12 pm
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 1522
|
| I would think that a bunker which is treated as terrain, like in Baran, would block LoS in the same fashion as any other terrain. Obviously, some numbnut could try to use that to get some sort of funky advantage but I think most players reasoanbly conclude that a "3-unit" bunker should be ... |
|
|
Forum: Epic Armageddon Topic: community advice: termie characters |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:07 pm
|
|
Replies: 11
Views: 1470
|
| My favourite over the years for tournaments has been a Librarian. For me it's the best multi purpose character. In CC you still get the extra MW attack (I find it's bad attack dice rolls or great armour saves by my opponent that lose the assault rather than not having an inspiring character), used ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:00 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 3556
|
| What's in terrain ? 1um? Than you can you call it touching anyway, because it doesn't make any practical difference. When you clear thie rule up, you could clear it up and not leave room for discussion. It would be the same standards as when a model is under a barrage template, i.e. any part of a v... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:58 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 3556
|
| For reference, this is the proposed FAQ: Q: When is a unit in cover? A fraction of the model, more than half, fully? A: For infantry, they can gain concealment to-hit benefit from simply touching an AV, so it makes sense that would be the standard for claiming the to-hit penalty for any terrain. As ... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Infantry Cover Versus Concealment |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:07 pm
|
|
Replies: 19
Views: 3556
|
| In discussing this issue with the rules committee, it came out that a majority of the members had been breaking out the -1 to be hit "concealment" benefit from the cover save "cover" benefit as follows: * Being in contact with terrain or an AV is sufficient for the concealment mo... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ Plan |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:56 pm
|
|
Replies: 40
Views: 8443
|
| Draft posted. We still need a discussion on aircraft barging/ZoC/screening. |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ, part 1 |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:55 pm
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 1266
|
| 1.12.3 Q: Can a vehicle engage in close combat with a unit in dangerous terrain? What if it’s impassable? A: If a vehicle attacks a unit in difficult terrain in CC it has to take a dangerous terrain test but if it contacts a part of the stand that is not within the terrain (e.g. an infantry unit on... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: 2012 FAQ, part 1 |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:54 pm
|
|
Replies: 1
Views: 1266
|
| These are updated. Additions to existing FAQs are marked with italics. I know a few of them are controversial. None of these are written in stone but for the most part, the committee reached a strong consensus on them. Obviously, there are a few ongoing discussions as well, which have not been inclu... |
|
|
Forum: EpiComms NetEA Rules Amendments Topic: Fortifications FAQs |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:35 pm
|
|
Replies: 7
Views: 1522
|
| I am including these in the 2012 FAQ thread, but we never had a breakout talk on them specifically, so I'm pulling them out in case we need one. Also, any other suggestions for Fortification-related FAQs are welcome. == Fortifications Q: If infantry can gain cover from touching a terrain piece (see ... |
|
|
Forum: NetEA Chaos Topic: BL review:Daemons |
| nealhunt |
|
Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:32 pm
|
|
Replies: 33
Views: 4938
|
| Proposal Daemonic Pact - 50pts - allows summoning of 2D3 daemons, Summoning mechanic remains the same. In addition for each Pact purchased you get 2 lesser daemons in the pool. I don't understand the purpose of bundling them into a package. What does it accomplish? Champion - 50pts - The Champion m... |
|
|
| Sort by: |