Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About retnuH

  • Birthday 01/01/1974

Recent Profile Visitors

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

retnuH's Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Just seen the new announcement. I noticed that Lilith and Collodi didn't seem to make it through to 3e - I'm a bit bummed. I haven't got to play much but was really looking forward to using Lilith as a good master to learn the game. And who doesn't love puppet murder balls? I'm sure other factions have Master's who didn't make the cut; what will be the general plan in this regard?
  2. If you use github to host your source code (and why wouldn't you? It's easy enough to create a project/repo that has just html, css, etc. I use it to host my CV online! https://pages.github.com/
  3. I'd really love to see thoughts about Beckoners with the Dreamer; I've read quite a few things talking about their utility in almost any crew. I'd also be curious to see thoughts on Illuminated; or the idea of Mr. Tannen and that elusive summoned Teddy. Great article(s), thanks a million!
  4. Any response for this? There doesn't seem to be any consensus, an official ruling would be helpful!
  5. My point is that it's not clear - the language is ambiguous. You can see by the other posts that I'm not the only one who is confused. I don't really mind either way which way it works; what I would is a clarification (on the Errata page) that is unquestionably clear, through the use of stronger/tighter language, examples, whatever. Just so that it is clear and self contained.
  6. From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/per "1. for each; for every" So to me, it's pretty clear language that you take each one individually
  7. Can you give me an example? Not that I don't believe you, of course, I'd just like to have one for reference! I still think it would be nice if the clarification were worded in such a way that there's no ambiguity. I've seen others on the forums asking the same thing...
  8. Okay this is pretty pedantic but it's potentially important! The poison errata currently states (emphasis mine): "When a model is hit by an attack with Poison # or affected by an Ability with Poison #, increase the number of Poison Tokens the model has to the # indicated either after resolving the attack, or as indicated by the Ability. Each time the model begins an activation it suffers 1 Wd per Poison Token it has, and then discards one Poison Token." The way I read this, is that it takes each Poison Token causes 1 Wd individually. Thus, something with Object 1 that has 2 Poison Tokens on it would take 2 Wds when it activates. Similarly, a model that is Hard To Kill with 2 Wds remaining that has 2 Poison Tokens on it would die when it activates - the first Poison Token would cause 1 Wd, reducing it to 1 Wd, and then the second Poison Token would cause 1 Wd, reducing it to 0 Wd, killing it. Now, if the intent is that it that it is all applied in one go, the bit I've highlighted in bold should probably be worded differently to make this clear. Perhaps something along the lines of "Each time the model begins an activation, it suffers # Wd, where # is the number of Poison Tokens it currently has, and then discards..."
  • Create New...

Important Information