Carasz

I also hope they won't add it to the FAQ, because I don't think it constitutes a frequently asked question. Having it here on the forum suffices. It's such a small thing that most people will probably read as intended, and not give it a second though.

It seems you still don't want to see my (or OPs) point, but ok. Less fuss for you. However, I'd be grateful if you stated a reason why it's cheating, so that I can use that in case someone tries to make the same point I've done. That is the purpose if this thread, to clear this out. And the first paragraph doesn't use models in plural. The second paragraph does.

That paragraph, however, never uses any plurals. So the case of multiple models is still up to the reader to interpret. Also, it says "This may provoke a disengaging strike from the enemy model...". I believe they're written so because some models do not provoke disengaging strikes, but it may be interpreted as "since only one of the engaged models make a disengaging strike, this model may be the model who makes the strike". I still have to say I'm going to play it as if the word "each" is included in the text. It makes more sense, it follows 1.5 and seems appropriate. I just have to hope my opponent does not try to rules lawyer me and use the rules as written. Then again, I probably won't want to play against that kind of player many times anyway.

It doesn't specify "each enemy model may..." do the attack, but it is kind of understood since there is no mechanic for models to make a strike together. If wyrd intended only one of the (enemy) models to make the disengaging strike, I believe they would have specified that in the text. Ausplosion, I have to say I like the new direction you've been going in the last few weeks. But please, don't just say "this is how it works", use an argument to prove it. Respond to and refute his argument specifically. It's much more constructive.

It feels extortionate because you only want those four cards. You still pay for and get much more than that. I'd gladly pay 8 bucks for more cards than I need than pay $1 for each card. For all of us who need more than 4 cards it'll soon even out when buying the whole pack than separate cards. And I get extra stuff, which I might use later or sell. Remember, you don't need those cards to play. You can play just as well with the rulebook. As long as someone in the room has the rulebook, you're fine. You want those cards because it makes paying easier. I don't think they expect someone to pay that, they just don't have another reasonable way to do it. It's not worth the time and money to do it any other way. I'd rather they took the time to release more models. Look around if someone nearby needs some cards, you can split the packs. Or sell the rest online.

Are we not getting a (second) book with the rest if the models? Or do you mean the book will take too long?

Yes, I felt the same but never went back to re-reading it. Maybe I should...

It's been a while since I read that one, but I figured Collodi was one of Venn's creations who took over after Venn was disabled. But now I'm pretty sure this is way off.

That's a really big difference... It's like two actually different scales.

I think Oyumaru is what you're thinking of. It's unfortunately not very good for casting 3d objects (like a whole model) but very good for mainly 2d (like emblems and bases) with a few mm or less in height differences. This is purely from my own experience though. There are a few tutorials around the web about casting your own miniatures. The NB might be hard though, since it has so many pieces sticking out from it (you have to assemble it from many pieces for a reason). One idea might be the simple "dip it in liquid latex many times" to make a mold. However, you need to be very precise with the first few layers (to avoid getting airbubbles) and you probably need some kind of injection molding for this (to squeeze the resin out in the tentacles) since it has some viscosity which will stop it from going all the way out in small passages. If you manage these two things, and the resin hardens, the latex is easy to rip apart and reveal the complete copy withing. It will make a solid copy though that should be see through. The other main way is to make a two-part mold, by submerging half the model in clay and pouring some kind of rubber and then repeat with the other half. This is more similar to the way companies do it. This way needs the models to have a seam, where the two halves meet, which means you can't get all the tentacles going everywhere. I've seen people make really cool models with clear resin and LED-lights (with the lights in the base and the bases painted), so this could be really cool. I don't think it will work with the NB though. And as have already been said, this might not be approved of by Wyrd. I think that if you would succeed, it's more of an homage and proves something about the design of their models, so it should be taken as a compliment. Hopefully they'll let you do it (for personal use only of course).

Thanks you all! Yeah, about the glove and the stock, I agree. I think it might have been laziness with the color choice, but a tan glove would have been better.

Not only fighting style, but it could represent them being big and lumbering, not being lithe enough to get through the same passage others could. A measure of how much personal space they need, perhaps?

I just had to get my hands on the old Seamus model, it's one of the best Wyrd has done. Now that the plastics are coming, I had to take the chance. With such a canvas, I just had to try my best. I present to you, probably the best model I've painted in 15 years. I've, for the first time, experimented with non-metallic metallic and layering, where I normally just paint to tabletop standard. It was great fun, probably took me about 7 hours (from opened box to finish). Front Back I missed the part where I should have taken a photo from the side, so his bag 'o tricks is visible. And here is my mainstay crew, Colette and her troupe. These were the first Wyrd models I bought, and have used them to practice my painting. Painting never was my thing, but it's become quite fun. The fluff says Mannequins belong to the performers and the Coryphée are Colette's and Cassandra's personal (and improved) Mannequins and I wanted the paint scheme to reflect this. They wear the spare set of clothes that belong to their respective performer. Also took a picture of one of my stolen from my almost finished Hamelin crew. This was mainly to see how they stood up to being in front of the camera. Comments and critique welcome, especially on Seamus as he has been my practice object. The showgirls probably wont get any more attention, got new crews to paint, but I can take the experience with me.

Tried to make a bid, but it said "seller won't ship to Sweden".

I'm guessing they will be the same cards as those in the boxes, M2E artwork. The arsenal boxes are made to be compatible with M2E (as shown by it being the only way to get upgrade cards for now) and not really M1E. It's the cheaper to make one set of cards rather than two. But we can always hope... Color coding or numbering the models and their M2E cards might be a good back up plan.

I might be buying the crew box later on (a bit after it releases), so if you haven't found a seller in a few months, PM me.

Huh, interesting. Didn't know he went for that much. Well, it's way out of my price range then. Although its nice to see such interest in a miniature, too bad it's so limited. Probably, as you said, because it was so early.

I believe I've seen nightmare editions generally around 40-80 dollars here on the forum, both single models and whole crews. Can't help you much with NLCB specifically, but if you search the forum you might get some ideas. I'm personally a bit interested, but it's more of a "I think I might want it in the future" kind of deal so I'm afraid I wouldn't give you the best of offers...

It has come up in threads here and there and I'm curious. Everyone has a different opinion. What does everyone prefer? Models made of tin or models made of plastic? Models made of resin maybe? Personally I prefer plastics, all the way. Starting out with GWs models, the plastics always had the extra bits, the choices of equipment and customization. The higher quality when it comes to details. Easier to build, glue and convert. Paint sticks to it better, not as much scraping when not using varnish and such. I still get this feeling, even with Wyrds models. The downside would be that plastic breaks when bent too much or accidentally dropped. What do YOU prefer?

This highlights the problem. The word this has different meaning in the two sentences, if one only refers to that model and one refers all the identical spells. It would be good if it was coherent. Most people will understand the intent behind the rules and play it "right" most of the times, but an FAQ would be nice as an official ruling for when someone disputes this.

I've had the same experience with army painter cans. I've heard good things about their color versions (red, blue etc) but for me, both of the white cans I bought have had different levels of bumps, regardless of how much shaking I did. I returned to GWs brand, because it works. Not the cheapest, but easy to find.

So, you are saying "this spell" actually means "this spell (the one that is written on this card) and any spells by the same name (on other cards)"? As a side note, I'm not saying I want to be able to cast it more than once (since the limitation is there for a reason), but that is "interpreting intent" rather than interpreting what is actually written. When playing I'd go for the mechanically logical (intent) even if it would give the other player a benefit. But here, on the forum, we have a chance to get FAQs done, for when someone is a rules lawyer (I have some experience with playing against such people). So I'd like to straighten it out.

I second Final_Crucible. I personally always try to paint what I'm basing with (except for things like flock and snow), it'll give the whole model a more coherent look. You can also accentuate shadows and such, since they would stick out more if the stone was life size and not model size.

What do you do in the case of how I interpret it? I'm asking because that clause unfortunately does not help me. The wording still lets you use other copies of the spell once per turn, per crew. As far as I know, in English grammar, this spell usually is used to differentiate from other spells, even other spells just like it. Using "the spell may only cast once per turn, per crew". Or maybe reference the spell by name. This limits all spells of the same name, except on the other crew. Or is a spell an immaterial idea, that only exists in one copy and therefore cannot be split into separate copies, which means all spells are actually the same spell? (This affects how you grammatically would refer to it). Of course, I'm not native to this language, so if I somehow misuse grammar please be kind and point that out (if its relevant to the debate). However, if I make this mistake then others are sure to, since not all players are native to English.

Why was it senseless? Do you still disagree, even after the longer post I made? Would you please give my post a thought and give me an argument why it's wrong? This is what I meant by polite. A discussion is a back and forth. It needs two parts. If one of the parts only says "no, it's bad", the discussion goes nowhere. It seems you still haven't read my post, since I wrote this exact thing, just after the "polite" part. I've explained why I compared it to batteries. I can even rehash it: I needed a physical object that most people are familiar with that has a limit on its uses but can be restored to be used again. A spell isn't substantial enough, so I used a battery. It's an analogy. Edit: For Mako on the topic of reasonable debate; just to be clear, the first three questions are legitimate questions to further the topic. Those I'd like to have answered.