Barrogh

Members
  • Content count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    174d 10h 4m 49s

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Barrogh

  • Rank
    Mayanaut
  1. He technically has two though Are we really discussing this, anyway?
  2. Don't forget that CB (up to whom it is to make those changes, or some other, if any) can make anything work however they like and legacy rules won't be a problem for them. Impetous order plus ability to take cover at once? Possible. Un-nesting fury and inability to claim partial cover altogether? Doable. Order per wound? Fine. Counting default profile wounds for that purpose? Should the need arise. It's really not a matter of how to make changes when you have as much power over things as devs. Don't worry about that. The question is what's needed and what else it will affect.
  3. I look at Riot Grrl ML (or is it HRL? whatever) and I see Yolandi Visser (Die Antwoord).
  4. It's actually berserk AP weapon. Wallace does indeed offer berserk EXP weapon, but who would want to do that unless they have to?
  5. So we measure it like if it was horizontal movement, but still draw a detailed trajectory for other purposes (like LoF) when vaulting? Got it.
  6. I think we have a FAQ entry pointing out that models still "move up and down" during a vault. I think that means we still play full horizontal and vertical movement even when vaulting. Nevermind, I can't read. I wanted to add that a model with Climbing Plus can still declare Climb, and do so as a Short Movement Skill. Actually, this is probably the reason for that clause, to make sure having Climbing Plus isn't a downside in some cases.
  7. Yes, that's a good find. Someone has linked me that shortly after I've posted here last time. I think it shows us what the intention is. Like I said in that another thread, if someone wants to be super-technical about it, he can point out that the example is not clear on whether usage of the Optional Stealth skill took place, or go as far as to say it was not declared (not sure if that's how Optional skills are technically supposed to work though). Other than that, it seems to me this is the most we can make out of it at the moment.
  8. Only if he ends his movement in B2B since that's the case covered by that 4th clause But oh well, this is going nowhere. I'm pretty sure we can agree that this is not how Stealth should work and be done with this. I admit it was me who kicked up the fuss since it's likely for me to face a Ninja-train JSA player here and I was not sure how to address that list. Especially if denying shots like that was a legal claim. But anyway, JSA is the issue for another thread. Now, back to warbands, I guess
  9. Probably would not stop someone from being super technical ("Example doesn't show if he declares his Optional skill Stealth"), but I guess is good enough to show what was the intention.
  10. So, apparently there is an opinion that both 3rd and 4th bullets in Stealth rule description are extension of 2nd bullet and cover the situation when you are in opponent's ZoC, but out of LoF. It makes sense although IMO it can be argued both ways if your group plays by RAW. So I guess you should come to an agreement with your opponent beforehand if you want to avoid possible arguments.
  11. That makes sense. Let's hope that I won't have to argue from that standpoint during a real game though. Apparently, some people do play it in what I assume is unintended way.
  12. Can you comment on how this works in the light of the wording of the last bullet in the Stealth description? Should my opponent move his Oniwaban into b2b with my CR-wielding model while in my LoF, saying that this denies me my shot, is there anything to appeal to except ephemeral "context" or "spirit of the rule"?
  13. On a side note, at 150 points most TAG lists will be rather limited to a TAG and a bunch of cheerleaders. What faction your TAG enthusiast plays and what exactly does he use?
  14. In hindsight, it's kinda obvious that you smoke dodge with BS using LGL, but that was a nice pointer, thanks. As of late, I'm starting to feel my choices of Muib loadouts for project lists are skewed towards LGL pieces more and more.
  15. Well... Same would happen if you declare same actions (including shooting something that isn't that hacker) without having Stealth, so it's not like it creates a weakness for stealthy trooper. It makes mistakes costly, yes, but you can at least check things before doing something. It's really a mentality thing. Technically, Stealth is optional, so you have to declare when you use it. If you misuse it and get punished, that's not such an issue. It would be worse if it was automatic/obligatory. Sure, maybe some of those possible interactions are weird, but so are many other things in this game, doesn't mean they aren't workable. Well, skills being nested together for no apparent reason are the problem here IMO. Then again, you can solve this issue by learning your stuff. IMO the real problem there is how Stealth works when it is used in the most straightforward way, even. -------------------- EDIT: You know what, I'm gonna ask it here and avoid creating another thread. Since you have mentioned that Stealth is roughly worded. Here's something that was pointed out to me elsewhere on the forum: From Stealth description: "If the Movement of the trooper with Stealth ends in base to base contact with an enemy and declares any non-Movement Short Skill, then the enemy can only declare CC Attack, Dodge, Reset, or those Skills that can be used in Engaged state." General spirit of the rule is that it's about troopers operating within ZoC, but out of LoF. However, a fellow forumer suggests that this wording allows you to move your Stealthy model in plain sight (in LoF) of an enemy trooper and deny him an ability to declare any ARO that isn't usable while Engaged as long as he ends his movement in B2B and then declares another Short skill. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I see no way of deflecting this with RAW. Anyone can comment on that? Is it really how it works?