I've been playing some Warhammer Fantasy lately. The system has seen a slight upswing down at the club, and combined with the rerelease of the Empire, this has got me interested again.
However, this has had me look into the Fantasy ruleset again (about a year since I played last) and a few things have popped up. Which means I've actually got something to write about. Yay!
Showing posts with label WHFB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WHFB. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Sunday, 6 May 2012
WHFB: 8th Edition Steam Tank
[Insert witty greeting here]
I've now played two (yes, a full, staggering two) games with the new Empire Army Book. Largely, I stand by my early impressions here: things are more expensive and only marginally better.
However, as part of that article, I also stated that the Steam Tank was different, but didn't specify further.
So today, I'll be looking at the Steam Tank in some detail.
I've now played two (yes, a full, staggering two) games with the new Empire Army Book. Largely, I stand by my early impressions here: things are more expensive and only marginally better.
However, as part of that article, I also stated that the Steam Tank was different, but didn't specify further.
So today, I'll be looking at the Steam Tank in some detail.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
WHFB Rules Conundrum: The Impossible Combat Reform
So, skipping the customary greeting and excuse for not having posted for a while, here's the gist of today's Rules Conundrum:
It is impossible to perform any but the most basic Combat Reform.
It is impossible to perform any but the most basic Combat Reform.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
WHFB Rules Conundrum: Obstacles and Steam Tanks
So, here goes again. Today, I bring a rules conundrum of the horticulturally destructive kind.
Friday, 22 April 2011
Rules Conundrum: WHFB buildings, close combat and multi-character units
Guess who's back? Yay, it's me.
This edition of Rules Conundrum will be a little different. Why? 'Cause I say so. And also, because it's a weird thing, that has a fairly straightforward but completely unintuitive answer.
So, last night I had a game of Warhammer Fantasy. Watchtower scenario (oh, lord, how I hate it). Long story short, my general and Battle Standard Bearer (only survivors from a unit of Halberdiers) assault the Watchtower alone. Here's the fun bit, from the rules regarding assaulting a building:
"If characters, champions, or other models that can normally be singled out if they are in base contact are involved in the assault, then up to half the enemy models can choose to attack them [. . .]" (BRB, p. 128)
So, up to half the enemy models involved (five out of ten) can choose to attack my characters. Not each. Half his attacks are wasted, since there isn't a unit to attack instead.
And on that short note, I leave you for now. I'm hoping to get a commentary on my Tyranid list up within a couple of days. Here's to that working out.
Cheers.
This edition of Rules Conundrum will be a little different. Why? 'Cause I say so. And also, because it's a weird thing, that has a fairly straightforward but completely unintuitive answer.
So, last night I had a game of Warhammer Fantasy. Watchtower scenario (oh, lord, how I hate it). Long story short, my general and Battle Standard Bearer (only survivors from a unit of Halberdiers) assault the Watchtower alone. Here's the fun bit, from the rules regarding assaulting a building:
"If characters, champions, or other models that can normally be singled out if they are in base contact are involved in the assault, then up to half the enemy models can choose to attack them [. . .]" (BRB, p. 128)
So, up to half the enemy models involved (five out of ten) can choose to attack my characters. Not each. Half his attacks are wasted, since there isn't a unit to attack instead.
And on that short note, I leave you for now. I'm hoping to get a commentary on my Tyranid list up within a couple of days. Here's to that working out.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)