Poo
No pact for them
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| LatD question http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=15856 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
Generic Daemons only for Undivided formations. |
|
| Author: | Couchmonster [ Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
Poo No pact for them |
|
| Author: | Couchmonster [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
hello again, I've another question perplexing me. Support formations, do they need to be of the same markings as your core formations? i.e. If i buy a khorne coven can I then purchase a formation of doomwings, or, am i stuck with Khorne/Undivided support? |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
Quote: (Couchmonster @ 15 Jun. 2009, 15:51 ) hello again, I've another question perplexing me. Support formations, do they need to be of the same markings as your core formations? i.e. If i buy a khorne coven can I then purchase a formation of doomwings, or, am i stuck with Khorne/Undivided support? Aligned Daemon Engines require a Coven of the same alignment. Undivided Daemon Engine formations can go with any core formation, regardless of alignment. I'm fairly certain that non-Daemon Engine support formations are not restricted by any sort of core formation alignments. So, a Tzeentch Coven could be used to provide a support slot filled by a Khorne Traitor Rough Rider formation. However, I don't have it handy to confirm and might be mistaken. |
|
| Author: | alakazam [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
A quick question (as this thread jogged my memory) - Factions. Is it basically that the LaTD all have an initiative of 2+ unless there are hated enemy within 30cm? So, if I had an all Nurgle LaTD they would all be 2+ initiative? If this is the case, then surely it would be easier to give them a 2+ initiative and a -1 if hated? Or have I got this ALL wrong (possible)? 
|
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
alakazam: Correct, they effectively all have a 2+ initiative most of the time, but it was deliberately phrased in the awkward manner due to Jervis' insistence that all special rules should be phrased as an advantage rather than a disadvantage if possible, so that if the player forgets to use the rule ingame he doesn't gain an unfair advantage. |
|
| Author: | AxelFendersson [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
No, you've got it pretty much right. That's long been a point of controversy. The idea is that rules should be expressed in terms of bonuses rather than penalties if possible: that way players are penalised if they forget how their own army works rather than benefiting from forgetting the penalty. This is only sensible; knowing the rules for your own army is your responsibility and your opponent shouldn't lose out because you forgot something about your own troops. However, although a good idea in general, it does make for a very odd and awkward rule in this particular case, and I gather quite a few people feel it would be a lot better if an exception were made. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | LatD question |
I agree with the idea behind the rule but I think it's been pretty clearly shown that it doesn't work. It's a roundabout way of getting where you want to be and more importantly, doesn't really stop people from "forgetting a penalty." You get used to it and just assume all your chaos troops are 1+/2+ (depending on whether you're CSM or Cultist) and then you "forget the penalty" anyway. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|