• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    22d 12h 58m 39s

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About paddyBatman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • Location Co. Fermanagh
  1. Cheers, that was a helpful insight.
  2. Aye but this Forum isn't integrated enough with warconsole accounts to implement the Mods & verified accounts within the campaigns. I'm guessing you think maintaining a per se between campaigns, whatever purpose that might serve, would be a duplication of what goes on here on this forum. An effort with little return. Does this callback to the brief of warconsole that you mentioned earlier? The brief doesn't extend to "Careers" shall we call it? (something that spans campaigns) It's limited to the scope of pop-up or one-shot experiences.
  3. Aye man sounds like a goer right enough. Wonder would that mean that people have a portal/community that bridges the gaps between campaigns.
  4. It was very cool that when I logged into Wotan I was recognised & afforded a Flamestrike Vet award. So I guess there's a little continuity between campaigns. Maybe "mods" from previous campaigns could be trusted/invited to be MidWife mods of a new campaign.
  5. *Leaping into the fray at completely the wrong moment* Someone earlier was talking about batReps & the value they add. One idea might be Faction Moderators. Like other online boards & communities those Mods are entrusted with over-seeing the community. They could also verify player accounts leading to verified batReps. Verified batRep could be worth more points than unverified batReps?
  6. As a fellow CA player, I feel similar. Off the back of Flamestrike I found myself thinking, when faced with the choice of playing game related to a campaign or not, it seemed the more delightful choice was an unrelated game. I could play my own set of narrative games & those games wouldn't be influenced by real-world market influences such as faction popularity. @Vaulsc made the point quite eloquently in one of his videos: play the campaign, just don't invest in it if you're a member of a smaller faction. I gotta feel for @Beasts of War - Warren & the crew, it's not easy trying to satisfy everyone & very much to their credit, I don't see other people trying to make global campaigns a thing. Someone's got to trail-blaze & with the greatest respect, someone's gotta to get things wonky before things get straight & balanced. I see Wotan as another step along the way of realizing their vision. I doubt that FlameStrike or Wotan is the complete picture in their head. Running the campaign faces a number of game design problems - is the game going to look like RISK or Monopoly? Everyone starts off on an even footing but then there's a tipping point after which there's an age before the winner finally wins. Is it going to look like musical chairs, except the chairs never get taken away? The process is really just a process of swapping places. I imagine there's a number of experiences the organisers hope players have, feelings of camaraderie within factions, healthy & fun rivalry with other factions, being able to leave your stamp on when you were there to contribute seizing a territory. (Hence the big developments in battle reports, the value to the user is largely created by the user in this case) Volume aggregate win scenarios will always be plagued with balance arguments (market regulation anyone?). Especially in a scenario that's based on wins as a whole. I'm sure I said it somewhere before but I wonder if any thought's been put into the use of the narrative element of the platform to allow parallel successes across the factions. Simplistic example, each faction has it's own attainable goal that'll further it's fluffy agenda. Another example would be to setup opposing factions of similar sizes to contest goals within the wider campaign e.g. aleph vs CA, PanO vs Nomads. That might offer more balance to players of smaller factions & give whatever they want to invest in the campaign another avenue of return.
  7. I like this sort of idea - though does it suffer from the RISK/monopoly element that the game will be exciting & balanced at the beginning but towards the end very one-sided?
  8. So starting with the above: Is it instead fairer to say that when looking at the requirements of a skill in the active turn you look at the beginning conditions at the point of declaration with a mind to concurrent resolution after all skills have been declared. E.g. at the point of the 1st declaration, I'll be able to declare a move, a BS attack, a dodge because my model meets those requirements. Furthermore I'll be able to declare a bs attack 2nd because at some point throughout this whole order I met those requirements. Having spent my first skill moving into b2b, the engaged state activates & I gain some options but also lose some options. My 2nd skill could be a CC attack because those requirements have been met but I can't move again because I have to pass a dodge roll. So to try & summarise, in an order were you're planning to move into b2b here's what your (some of) options are: 1st: move, bs attack, dodge, activate, discover (some other enemy marker), idle If the 1st option was move then 2nd skill gains the following options: CC attack, Coup de Grace (Doctor, Engineer?). As above, if it's an enemy model, the engaged state dictates available options meaning the 2nd skill can't be move. If the 1st skill wasn't move, the 2nd skill could be a move to b2b. As an aside, if you *start* your order in b2b with an enemy (Engaged) then that's were your skill options are properly constrained by the state & it's cancellation conditions.
  9. So is it fair to say therefore that the engaged state only activates at the end of the order?
  10. I'm sure this has been answered before, but can you BS attack? Does the Engaged state activate at the point of the 1st skill declaration therefore limiting the choices of the 2nd skill declaration precluding a BS attack?
  11. Quick sanity check, I'm the active player. My first short skill I declare move & I put my big scary close combat dude into base contact with an enemy model. Reactive player freaks out & declares "Dodge" as his ARO. Can I declare another move as my 2nd ARO? (Used the first skill as a bluff to see if I could get another move in for my second skill)
  12. Am I right in thinking the template attack is Nullified?
  13. Just wanna up the ante here… Link team including one smoke thrower activates & declares Move. Reactive model draws LoF to one member of the link team, not the smoke thrower (who's also the teamLeader). Reactive model declares BS attack. 2nd short skill declared is BS attack with smoke grenades, the link team leader places the templates at a point they can see that also blocks the reactiveShooters LoF to the targeted member of the link team. Are the rolls in this case normal or face to face? Given that none of the reactive shots are against the smoke throwing link team leader?
  14. My question is on the part that says if the guided attack uses an impact template or the target has LoF resolve as a FtF. What happens if the target has no LoF, it's an impact template attack & there are others caught in the blast? In the impact template rules it says if you've no LoF you get to dodge at PH-3 & that this is a normal roll. Does this mean that similar to smoke dodge the guided impact template roll needs to beat all the dodges of those affected?
  15. In the current version of army, selecting Traktor Muls looks like they contribute regular orders to the group. Same with Chaksas I think. Yet G: Synchronized reads: "G: Synchronized troopers don’t provide Orders to the Order Pool, and cannot receive Orders from their Order Pool." Am I missing something? Or is Army wrong? EDIT: Ignore me, Traktor Muls ain't G: Synchronized.