Jump to content

Paddywhack

Members
  • Content Count

    2,044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Paddywhack last won the day on September 23 2017

Paddywhack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

818 Huggable

1 Follower

About Paddywhack

  • Rank
    Woo Hoo!
  • Birthday 08/01/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oregon

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My 3 year old did this for me. I helped a little Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf
  2. How do you accurately judge where the 'center' of a model is? You can eyeball it, but sometimes that little extra bit can make a huge difference. On a 30mm it may not make too much difference, but a 50mm model leaves a bit of room for error trying to accurately place it exactly center to center. Since we measure from the edge of the base, it seems cleaner to go edge of base to center, though I still find that messy. I'd prefer it if was always edge to edge to make it easier to cleanly place and see. Would love a clarification in the next FAQ so we are all playing it the same way though.
  3. I agree. Unfortunately, there isn't a good break down of the Targeting step. I would think that you don't have to take a Terrifying check until you know who your target actually is. If your opponent wants to use Take the Hit, that changes the target, so the original 'target' wasn't really targeted, so shouldn't get their terrifying. Instead you use the Terrifying on the model that is actually taking the hit. That seems to me the possible intent. However, simultaneous effects could make it that you do in fact have to take 2 terror checks. And while we might think it's OP, there can be an argument made for it in the rules. I don't believe that was the intent myself. I swear there was a place that talked about changing targets and how it affected manipulative, etc. but can't for the life of me find anything. Maybe I'm thinking 2E?
  4. So you get to ignore it completely? That doesn't seem right either. You should have to take one of them. I'd say it's the one on the model you actually end up targeting. I agree the timing is less than clear though.
  5. I just played sharing 3 stitched and they still such to face. Couldn't beat him once on Gamble with their ability to pull cards from their lucid dream pile. Better than before, but they still suck to face.
  6. I'm not sure basing it off of 3 games is really a great indicator. What if the next 3 games you never flip the mask, would you think he was useless? It's still a harsh nerf. We'll have to see how he plays or over time, but I would have preferred a little something different.
  7. What would make Belle's useful while still being 5ss? Build in the Distracted on the lure? Longer range again on the lure? Something else? Maybe a built in reposition on the Lure so you can pull models further away? Just not sure how to change them that doesn't make them too good or go up in cost
  8. Can Reva use Channeled Flame defensively? So can she only use it when she takes an action, or any duel? I think any duel, but want to make sure I'm not misreading.
  9. Friendly and Enemy controlled will be different for each player. My models are Friendly-controlled to me, but they are enemy controlled to my opponent. You seem to be reading it as an absolute, but we always look at enemy/friendly in relation to the player/model, not in a vacuum.
  10. I'd say it's more than good. Even OOK it's only 6SS for a False Witness. You get to Drop 2 schemes so no worry about interacting or putting them too close. Then you do have to remove one, but it doesn't have to be one of those - it can be any friendly scheme anywhere on the table. Makes it very hard for an opponent to counter. I agree there isn't much else that they're best in Elite/Journalist, but hardly a bad pick OOK if its a scheme heavy pool. Those guys are always a prime target when I face them as I don't want to deal with scheme marker issues.
  11. You could make it uncheatable (more of a gamble in my mind) or call it out differently. But it's hard to know since we seem to all have slightly different interpretations and can't figure out exactly what the intent was.
  12. I see where you are coming from. I could see it that way and makes sense to play it that way, but I can still see people arguing. Would be nice if they had explicitly called out the pigapult.
  13. It still seems like a very convoluted way to word it. And if you are suffering effects as though the defender was taking this Action targeting this model, wouldn't you need to still hit the target number? If you were taking the Action and didn't hit the TN, the Action fails. I'm confused, but will wait to see if there is any clarification and hope I don't face any Stitched before then. I know it was too good before, but man, this new one is just annoyingly worded.
  14. Then what is the point of the "as though the Defending model was taking this Action targeting this model" bit? That's a lot of words when it could have just said 'takes a 3/4/5 dmg flip'. I'm not sure what that whole part is there for otherwise. For me thats a far more important part than just 'suffers effects', but there appears to be a lot of confusion already on this one.
  15. I think 1.14 clears this up though. If you aren't affected by a pulse centered on you and the Range is Pulse 4, then how can you be 'in range' if you aren't affected? Pigapult seems pretty clear too - the shockwave is centered on the model, so that model will not be affected by the shockwave. Not sure if that was the intent, but it seems pretty clear that's what the FAQ indicates. Maybe the line about not killed by this Action is on the off chance you plop a model on 1Wd into hazardous terrain? I do agree though with your overall sentiment. Some of the questions and answers are worded in very awkward ways. Some of them are making me read them over and over to get it clear.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information