Warhammer Fantasy Battle Reporter Forum

(a Warhammer forum for Fantasy Battle & Games Workshop products. Sponsored by battlereporter.blogspot.com)
It is currently Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:15 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:05 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
any reason the Harpoon Bolt-Thrower is a Special rather than a Core choice?

RE: interceptors cost is fine considering u can only field 1 unit of 15 and they hv no AS, ill be playing Nauticans at my local club this week

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:29 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
Hi Kiwi,

Re the Tripoon, yep I deliberately wanted to keep the army light in missile weapons and cavalry. Originally they were going to get none of either but I quickly realised this was a no-no.

I've also got a game coming up, this time my buddy is the Nauticans and I'll probably be Empire. let me know how the game goes.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Sweet as sound reasoning. Except some more battle reports for Nauticans up on my blog over next couple of weeks.

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:33 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Regarding the Trident Guard I like the modifications to the rules under v3 but was wondering if you had considered given the Champion the option of taking a magical weapon up to 25pts. Similar to HE Champions in Swordmaster and Phoenix Guard units.

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
drat ! captains were supposed to be able to take magical items in draft 3.0. I specifically went through all the magic items to make sure it wasn't going to be a problem and I adjusted some of them in pts cost accordingly.

I must have forgotten to add it ! I'll change it at the weekend and update to draft 3.1.

I'll double check first to make sure I didn't change my mind at the last minute. I don't think I did.

Thanks for the suggestion Kiwi.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
Can anyone spot the neat combination of core units that can be combined when attacking the enemy in a multi-unit combat ?

There's a "synergy" to using two of the different units together. Their combined effect is greater than the sum of their parts.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Umm to small units of Coral Hunters merging into one is it that?

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
Nope, that's not it.

It doesn't involve Coral Hunters or Crest Riders, it involves 2 other diferent units that can be used in unison to useful effect.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:49 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Clarification needed for Sandgangers rule

Currently it reads "immune to all missle fire with the exception of war machines & magic missles"

How about rewording it to "immune to all normal missles less than S6" - pretty much covers the same thing but takes away any confusion over the different warmachine types you will come across.... also *ahem* makes them immune to indirect hits from rock lobbers etc.

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
hmm.. I'm not sure Kiwi. For the points Sandgangers are pretty useful already in my opinion. They're designed to make the enemy come to them and engage (before tey start to get ni the way) but I'd like to give enemies the option of taking them on with mortars, rock lobbers and other warmachines.

I'll add it to the notes for later drafts. I won't be changing any rules now for a while (unless we spot something that is planinly wrong).

PS. I have a 2250pts game on 30th May. This time my buddy is playing the Nauticans and I'll probably be Empire.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 11:04 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:22 am
Posts: 748
Reputation: 11


Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
RE: The Tripoon battery do I set that up as 3 separate Bolt-Throwers each with 3 crew, or should I just proxy in a single Bolt-Thrower with 3 crew?!? Not quite sure, I used 3 Dwarven War Machines last night ?!?

_________________
Check out my Wargaming Blog at
Image

Current WHFB Armies
Dwarfs - 3197 pts, High Elves - 3551 pts, Vampire Counts - 2334pts

Current tournament record
P27 W6 L17 D4 - Best Finish 9th (Dwarves)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 7:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
Hi Kiwi,

You're probably looking at the pdf which is now slightly out of date (I'm working on a new one this bank holiday weekend).

The tripoon is 3 bolt throwers used in a single unit (so 3 bolt throwers, 9 crew. It incurs wounds like a single unit (so it's more difficult to take a battery out than 3 separate bolt throwers because crew move between the battery bolt throwers as required).

Check out the latest rules (and the cool new artwork !):-

naut1.blogspot.com/2009/05/tripoon-battery.html
(paste into your browser)

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
I'm adding a new Rare Unit to the army list:- Weresharks !

The Wereshark miniature from reaper is just too good so I decided to build a unit around them. It's the same mini I'm currently using to represent the Hero level character Zharc.

I was going to remove Zharc but I've decided to keep him in so he can lead a unit of Weresharks. His profile and equipment are changing.

I have decided on the profile and rules (they're hard hitting with their own special frenzy rule so they get stronger). I'll get the details onto the Nautican Army list site in the next couple of days.

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 2767
Reputation: 28


Location: london uk
Highscores: 1
well folks... Weresharks have been added to the Rare units, I just couldn't resist given how good the Wereshark model is.

Werefrenzy is a slight twist on the usual Frenzy. It's a pretty hard unit in combat. Should be easy to counter though for the battle smart ;)

Their main restriction is forcing the choice of Manta Ray unit from a Special Unit to a Rare Unit Choice if you have Weresharks in your army (I called it the "Fish & Chips" rule !)

naut1.blogspot.com/2009/06/weresharks.html(paste above text into your browser)

_________________
GW news & Warhammer blog
170+ Fantasy Battle Reports
Nautican Warhammer Army list
Nautican Design Notes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:50 pm 
Offline
Field Marshall
Field Marshall
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:56 pm
Posts: 1569
Reputation: 24


Location: MT,USA
I like the look of them a lot Sigmar,but I think you should change the name of the Fish and Chips rule,it just puts off any form of environment that your army has building,perhaps rename it Predator?

_________________
ImageImageImage


IRON WITHIN,IRON WITHOUT


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: