Schism 93

Should be there too, what is the interclub thingy? Sounds like a good test for Shenlong

That's cool, we pretend the template goes under the model. Unless someone references where the book says this we must accept it is an assumption using an interpretation of the rules. I'm happy enough with that if we acknowledge it as an interpretation, not a rule I was too lazy to look up or too stupid to understand. My follow on question is looping back to the opening post. If we assume that it goes under a models base, why can't it go under the base a terrain feature has and where is this difference defined in the book? That's my point, if we don't, as you say, over think this and decipher the rules involved, we must accept we are using house rules. I have no problem at all with this, just that we should be honest about what we are doing.

Flip-flopping suggests picking a side, in reality what that leads to is inferring people are lazy/stupid for disagreeing with them. A rules forum should be for analysing rules in a detached fashion. You will throughout the discussion be swayed by different arguments until it becomes apparent what the rulebook actually says. Last night I agreed with Joel's interpretation, now I think it could go either way. But have neither read nor been pointed in the direction of anything that undermines the points I have made thus far. Making me think there is some conceptual language I am missing in the book or might need clearing up.

If this conversation is happening, extra clarity could be useful. Also, if touching but not overlapping is a requirement that is physically impossible if the models are in base contact and an errata or clarification on the term touching could be handy.

Good point Mike, but can you place a marker under a model? Opens up new shenanigans in my mind that changes a few things How are these different? Sorry if it's obvious, but can't see anything that defines a difference between these two. And the picture in the manual it would work as the secondary model is far enough away from the target to allow touching but not overlappimg

Please do not knee jerk cry crazy at what I'm about to say anyone, please. If you think I am wrong get models out and try to do this before responding. This may seem like splitting hairs and will not be popular, but, it is the follow on argument to the concept of physically requiring blasts to touch bases. I like to think no one would actually argue this in a game situation, but... We are in really dangerous territory here of removing single blasts from the game. If 2 models stand base to base, it is physically impossible to place a blast touching the target's base without overlapping it (by a miniscule amount) and catch the adjacent model in the blast. So, to avoid single blast attacks all you would need to do is stand really close together. That is mental! Therefore, I hope Vonevilstein's analysis is correct. Because if Joel is correct single blasts become useless using RAW, food for thought on any precedent set here

But, due to LoS the wagon wouldn't block pulse/aura

At the table I read and interpreted that same way as you, so accepted it to go that way. The henchman pointed out we are meant to be a top down view, so it might be okay, but overnight I've considered this more. By extension it means that of models are arranged in a cross formation base contact or 1" apart (large melee or keeping in an aura could be examples) it is therefore impossible to place blasts touching the central model. This seems counter intuitive to how a blast should work, am I missing a rule here or is this how you would also play this corner case example? *edited for spelling

Beat me to it, can't complain as you phrased it better than I would have, cheers.

It's like you took everything I wanted in a magazine and made it happen, thank you. Is there any chance you could add a bit beside every pic saying the range they are from in the next issue, cuz it just left me wanting to find some of them but not having a clue where to start looking. Cheers for this, got me to read the background in Genesis and it's beautiful, keep it coming Now to find somewhere that actually stocks those games

The waldgeist is too cool! The top three are the better painted to me, for different reasons. But I hope the waldgeist won the day, purely for innovative awesomeness, is there a whole crew like that, or just him? If more could you get pics please?

And there was me considering LCB You rock! Seconded, how can you get a camera to focus on 2 models? That was a major pain in the arse with Ravage, here is one focusing just on him My c and c, for what it's worth: Ravage, the base let him down, was in a rush and it shows in many places. (As an aside, pleased with my first attempt at OSL, learned a lot and enjoyed doing it, now not a technique that I am afraid of) Bette, I honestly can't make much out, think the highlights are too heavy at bottom of dress as that is where the eye is drawn. Whereas traditionally it should be drawn to the face area. Dunno if this is a photography or painting issue Captain, love this! The gut really does appear to be bulging out, not a fan of the blue coat, but it is still very well executed. aNico, the back of the chair is awesome, as is the base. Not sure on the rest of the model, but can't tell if that is paint job or focus related. Pale Rider, the shade variation on the leathers is well done to break up the colour on what could become too uniform, again, nice base, not sold on the colours used for the rest of the horse though man, sorry, would like to see it against that black stone background, could really make it pop Really looking forward to see what we all come up with next month guys, anyone got plans for it yet? Will avoid the planned LCB and will either pick up a new master (Colette or altRamos) for it or get cracking on Hamelin, dependant on finances, are henchmen allowed or masters only?

Unless there is some awesome overlap I didn't spot between Tannen, Oiran (plural Oiren??) and Yamaziko you are most likely right