• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    293d 14h 59m 4s

Community Reputation

5952 Excellent

About Todd

  • Rank
    Pseudo AI
  • Birthday 01/18/1980


  • Location Charlotte, North Carolina


  • ITS PIN S4471
  1. Most places that sell railroad scenic supplies should be able to get it. Check out, and search for "cherry tree" or "cherry blossoms." They have several items that would work for that project (the "Superleaf" stuff looks the most realistic).
  2. Depends on how close you want it to a realistic scale. Pre-made O Scale (around 6" tall) cherry trees are around $15 each. On the other hand, you can get twenty 65mm tall ones for about $8. Pink and white ground cover/turf is pretty cheap. Combined with a Woodland Scenics armature kit (5"-7" trees), you could do a batch of maybe 14 large cherry trees for under $30. Pegasus Hobbies sells fairly cheap bags of loose bricks in the correct scale.
  3. Even nice trees really aren't that expensive, relative to other terrain products made for this game. You can get packs of 10-24 good looking HO/O scale Noch or JTT trees on ebay anywhere from $16-$26 (there are also quite a few cheaper/lower quality trees from chinese suppliers in the 3"-5" range). Slap those on some cheap 50mm/60mm bases, and you're covering a pretty big footprint for $20-$30. Spread those across larger homemade area terrain bases, and coverage gets even better/cheaper (for cheap/quick, in the past I've used irregular shapes cut out of sheets of green fun foam, then flocked with grass). I bet that with a little bit of work (maybe a soak in the sink), those Lemax christmas trees can be de-flocked, and then re-flocked with a better material (Woodland Scenics Fine Turf works really well, just pick the color you like best). They're sort of an odd shape too (I think they're supposed to be Cedar trees), so maybe some trimming before flocking if you want to go for a spruce or fir look. Just keep in mind, that while you're getting a lot of trees, you may not be getting as many usable trees (if I recall, over half the bag is the extremely tiny out of scale size), and you're putting in more time making them look good.
  4. Now I understand, people wanting CB to actually address a known rules issue (that was brought to their attention before N3 went to print) is a perfectly good reason to make unprovoked jabs at imaginary rules lawyers who could hypothetically find issue with Monni's idea. It makes complete sense, carry on.
  5. Translated, for those who don't speak Douchese: "Best thing is, despite being very creative, those who enjoy consistency and playing according to the rules shouldn't have any issues with it."
  6. Can you draw LoF through the teleportation doors? How are you playing ZoC (true distance, or as if the room were at the table surface)? It seems like a fun idea, and depending on how you answer the above questions, may not make a very big difference in game play (with one pretty big exception). Keep in mind that Objective Rooms are intended to be large LoF blockers in the center of the table. Removing it creates a pretty big open area. You may want to consider placing surrounding terrain closer than you normally would. It also kind of depends on how much foliage is covering the supports.
  7. I've found that missions where the doors are all triggered to open simultaneously greatly benefit from having some S2 or higher terrain inside to break up firing lanes through and into the objective room. It also allows models to enter the room without being targeted by all the occupants at once, saves short threat range models from being taken out at range, and generally improves the balance of such missions as well as making them more interesting/fun to play.
  8. To be fair, it's been asked more often on this forum than some of the questions that make it into the FAQ (despite seemingly never having been asked). That's simply not true. It wasn't true when people used it to counter suggestions that N2 could be cleaned up, and it's not true now. For instance, if adding a single sentence eliminates the need for a paragraph long example, a diagram, or worse yet a FAQ entry, you've actually made the rules smaller and less complex. All that's necessary for getting everything "perfect", is for CB to be less resistant to changing the actual rule book text. And, I don't mean the occasional errata they call "FAQs." Also, not ignoring the dedicated group of people trying to help them would be good. It's not a secret that CB has been notified of issues (even before printing), and left them in anyway. Honestly, I worry that the whole thing has gotten too big, gone on too long, and Gutier's interest in the game has dwindled despite his tight grip on everything rules related remaining just as firm. Don't get me wrong. I'm hard on them in this respect, not because I think their incompetent, but because I believe they are extremely talented, and I see that they inspire dedication in fans willing to help. Grey Templar is being frustratingly stubborn, but that doesn't make him wrong. The "just play it like this" attitude is why people played impetuous wrong for years, never questioned things like infiltration roll transparency/combat group affiliation, and didn't ask how Guts movement was actually meant to work until the tail end of second edition.
  9. I think @EpicDiceFail meant Telemetry and HVT: Designation. The answer would be "no." The target of Telemetry must be an enemy trooper, and the target of HVT: Designation must be the enemy HVT model. Despite being referred to as enemy, the opponent's HVT is not an enemy trooper. The HVT rules state they are Neutral. HVT related objectives really ought to be phrased "opponent's HVT model." Mechanically speaking, there's no such thing as an enemy HVT model.
  10. From the FAQ: Is possible to activate more than one objective Marker (Antennas, Console…) at the same time through a Coordinated Order? No, because it is necessary to select the Marker as a target, and in the Coordinated Order the target has to be the same for all the participating troopers. So, no activating different objectives. Though, the answer should be "yes," to your second question. Multiple models could attempt to activate the same objective.
  11. @Loricus, how is this a witch hunt, and how am I not talking to you like a human? You posted a picture that screams photoshop (in my opinion), and claim you didn't think it appeared fake. I think that's pretty relevant, and I think I've been pretty civil about it. *edit- How is the majority of this thread not derailment, and why does that even matter now?
  12. What exactly was the mistake though, in your opinion (you still haven't answered my question)? Was it intentionally posting an image that obviously looked fake, not being able to discern whether an image is real/fake from looking at it, or just not bothering to check? Personally (fact checking aside, because that's not even what I'm worried about), I look at that particular image and can't help but assume it looks bogus, merely based on it's appearance. Like I said, perception and judgement.
  13. @Loricus, please answer my question. Did you, or did you not look at the following image and decide it looked legit (as in, not an obviously photo-shopped image), prior to posting it here on the forum? At this point, I'm not even talking about anything as complex as twisted narratives, or uncorroborated evidence. Did you look at it, with your own eyes, and truly not find it suspicious in its appearance?
  14. @Loricus, I'm raising a question about judgement and perception, not the specific point you were trying to make. You chose the images you posted from what I assume was a google search. You were in complete control of what images you decided to include/exclude in your post. Honestly, do you or do you not find the second one suspect (as in, obviously photo-shopped)? You criticized the media quite a bit earlier in this thread, but your post seems to be a perfect example of the even more serious issue of people not only sharing false news but also being increasingly unable to discern it from reality.
  15. @Loricus, please tell me you don't consider all of these images to be examples of reliable "evidence"? Especially the second one.