home

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Guvnor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66
1
The Count's Tavern / Re: Animosity 2 campaign: Sands of War
« on: September 05, 2007, 07:14:03 PM »
Oooooooooooooooo!  You're away for a bit and you miss the most wonderful things....!

Where did you get all the fluff from? I recall there isn't a lot about araby apart from the crusades. If you guys are making it up, well done- its a mammoth task.

Where is it set, and on what scales- e.g. is sartosa involved, does the map stretch to the coast? I recall (again) that the deserts are rather large.

Will the team apply weights to give different races different levels of participation? Or will you use most-posts-takes-all?

No worries if things aren't decided yet, and sorry for the bombardment of questions.

Interestingly, old GW Amy books are great paces for fluff for regions like Araby, Cathay, Kislev, the Border Princes and all those "Official Unofficial" regions.  The 4th Ed. Undead book is a great place for Araby, I wager old Bretonnia books to.


Absolutely true, I still treasure those books (back when GW didn't bother doing balance- but admitted it). And one was in my local library...  :eusa_clap:

2
The Count's Tavern / Re: Sigmarite Holy Inquisitiorial Tabernacle
« on: September 03, 2007, 04:29:10 PM »
Quote
Guvnor.... What is that on your avatar? lol, Im like "Wait, was he a member?" Uh... The combine have no direct coalation or affiliation with the Warhammer world. That and

That and presumably something. What did you miss out.

I believe the combine have many lessons to teach the inquisition/ learn from the inquistion: both use horrific torture, although the combine use genetic and neurological torture. We could have some fun combining that with blind faith. Ever seen some of our slaves? Also, the ruthless media campaign and communist-esque control on people's behaviour might be of use to you in suppression of dissent, something the combine soldiers have practised for a looooong time.

I guess you play 1/2life, Wyzer? Maybe I'll meet you in deathmatch or CS:S siometime (and probably lose...)

More importantly SOMEONE HAS SPELLED ALTAR WRONG

Check out new idea for arch lector, I believe by kermitthefrog .

3
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: new idea for arch lector
« on: September 03, 2007, 04:20:05 PM »
Too late. Its in the inquistion. At last, someone will actually be burnt!  :biggriin:

4
The Count's Tavern / Re: Sigmarite Holy Inquisitiorial Tabernacle
« on: August 17, 2007, 01:17:29 PM »
I'm not deeming the cult of taal heretical. I love taal. Taal is great.  :icon_mrgreen: See- green smiley. Green = cool with Taal:icon_mrgreen:

However, Mr FVC, with previous record of suspicion for devious activities, your sudden conversion becomes suspect- do you really believe in taal? Unlikely. You are using a less-regulated religion to hide your heretical, blaphemous and morally evil devil-worshipping behaviour.

I'm sure that with the hammer test, or the drowning test, or even the simple thumbscrew you will confess to the multitude of despicable crimes currently outstanding on display* at public locations** requiring immediate investigation*** by the inquisition.

Footnotes.
*Display is taken to mean exhibited on a wall
** The location is Mme Rosalitas, behind the toilet, in the locked vault underneath the mutant-rat-infested cellar, guarded by the inquisitorial lawyers**** fronted by the door marked "Do not enter under Pain of Pain. Beware of Vampires, Ogres, Skaven and Midaski."
*** As soon as the first case, of the missing alcohol (believed to be devilishly enchanted) stolen from Mr Bugman's LXXXXXXZXXXX cellar and the necessary disposal when found, is solved. Named 'Operation Hic'.
****Mr Rufas has details. If not- find Larry and Moe.


5
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Tell me your story - Best Cannon Shot !!!
« on: August 17, 2007, 12:56:51 PM »
Quick and witty. Well done warhammerlord_soth. If you don't mind, I might signature- just cos I like it.

6
The Count's Tavern / Re: Animosity 2 campaign: Sands of War
« on: August 17, 2007, 12:52:07 PM »
Is Sir Beoveld a brettonian? Could you ask someone to change it to the Sheikh? he should be the overall commander of the force. Or a viceroy. Just not a bret!  :eusa_wall:  :icon_wink:

7
The Count's Tavern / Re: Sigmarite Holy Inquisitiorial Tabernacle
« on: August 17, 2007, 08:12:11 AM »
What if the inquistition doesn't recognise the worship of taal as a good religion... it is suspiciously close, by way of worshipping beasts in dark forests, to the foul beastmen.

Taal= Standing Stones. Beasts= Standing Stones (monolith)
Taal= animal based. Beasts= animal based
Taal= hate of civilisation. Beasts= hate of civilisation.

This sounds like another cover up- FVC is simply a foul, chaos worshipping bray-shaman, whose name probably stands for 'feeling very chaotic' or some other blashphemous utterance.

Burn! Burn! Burn!  :eusa_clap: :icon_mrgreen: :eusa_clap:

P.S. Rufas- it probably should be 'Rot Licht Strasse'.

8
The Count's Tavern / Re: Sigmarite Holy Inquisitiorial Tabernacle
« on: August 16, 2007, 05:04:16 PM »
You may want to add Gazzor to your list of suspects- Waltar/2Stank use. The crime has been committed twice, by the way. BUT- in his defense the accused was fighting enemies of the empire fielding bovine associated armies, such as skinks and nasty VC.

Also, FVC wants to buy indulgences- this means he has done something wrong- why has no one found this? It could be because of a strange case of threadomancy whereby FVC created a new thread (newus threadulum) which is not punishable by any means or even a crime but he proceeded to restart a topic that was long dead (threadomancy). This confusing crime is very difficult to quantify. May I suggest a new crime of  topicus threadomancium, as follows?

Topicus Threadomancium


The crime of restarting, or re-energising a formerly 'dead' thread, debate or issue without use of the 'search function' or due respect to the 'dead' nature of the thread.

Also, what about off-topic conversation, or thread-stealing? both are v. v. v. serious crimes.

Does this work, informing, or puritanical streak earn me memebership?  :icon_wink:

9
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: The dwarf/Empire alliance - one-sided?
« on: August 16, 2007, 04:47:54 PM »
That's called a 'cessation of hostilities'. It doesn't mean the war didn't happen in the first place. That would be like saying the armistice meant WW1 never happened.

The brets were, yes- mainly due to crap GW fluff which really sucks because the empire  doesn't need to get picked on in fluff terms right now. They got hit on by SoC, despite winning for god's sake., and then NC tries to take out empire too.


10
This is probably a case of 'I may not like what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it'.

Gazzor has a list many of us don't like/agree with/accept but he can play it, and whatever. But also, others do have a right to tell Gazzor that they think his list is unfair. If nobody told me that it was unfair to play a SAD, or OotHC or whatever, I would have carried on doing so. In the same way Gazzor has the right to ignore them.

11
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Tell me your story - Best Cannon Shot !!!
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:54:47 AM »
Well, I hit a shaman, but only did one wound. Next turn, this (somehow) casues him to miscast, send him to the right, 7", straight through two chariot, kills both due to S10 hits and then suffers the same.

That was 600 points.

Then, the wolf riders and boar riders both panic. Flee off the table edge.

We are now near 900pts.

A Squig herd also panics and (this being 6th) 30 Squigs start bouncing randomly in the middle of enemy lines.

One squig causes a wound on a goblin shaman, makes him run off the field.

This totalled about 1400pts worth of damage. (First turn.)

12
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Favourite College of Magic?
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:48:27 AM »
Yes, That's it. Has tattoos painted on well in 'eavy metal army.


13
Funny that- I've got the same writing and picture- but mine is on 78.

14

 
Chap down the club plays CD with 8 bolt throwers.  At least he hasn't also go the 2 Earth Shakers...
They should hide their war machines behind their infantry as they can shoot the stanks + waltar, whilst I have to rely on long bounces through his infantry (Over guessing past the infantry is cheating IMO).

Well IMO, the list you're taking is cheating the game of fun and character.

That is quite a vague comment. The whole bret/WE/Lizard book is cheating the game of character. As is thorgrim. The anvil. Jaguar saurus. Skinks. Warp lightning, ratlings. Gazor is hardly committing a capital crime as there appears to be little character to steal considering that stuff.

Quote
:-( Whoever shoots with their 6 cannons first should win.  Seems more like 40k than an actual tactical game.
Only 5 cannons each at 2k points.  I expect we'll both hide our mobile units and have a cannon duel first.  He's only got 2 cannons, but has 2 outrider units.

Cos this is really going to be fun

Well, people still bet on dice in casinos and enjoy it (and congratulate each other when they 'win'- i.e. get lucky) so why shouldn't gazzor do the same? (and his opponent)

Quote
I don't believe in taking a knife to a gun fight.  I expect my opponents to take a winning list and I do as well.

What you expect them to take, and what they really take is f****ing different, most of the people at my (and your most probably) gaming club play a GAME because it is a GAME, does it make you feel better to  beat a person playing for fun? It's like cheating in a game of Monopoly just so you can prove how good you are or how man you are.

Woah- he hasn't cheated. He also has not forced/coerced people into playing his list. And so far, all the batreps show Gazzor against pretty hard lists, so I get the impression that there he isn't on a fluff bunny hunt.

Quote
Cheers guys.  I've played against Empire a fair few times.  The Waltar is hard.  The magic is hard.  The 1+ save Cav with Priest is hard.  Cannons are hard.  The infantry suck balls.  They're soft and squishy and incredibly easy to out manouver.  I can't see myself ever using infantry in an Empire list, apart from my 20 x-bows of course.

It's not that the infantry are squishy, it's just that you think you're playing deathwing. Empire are balanced and are not based on taking huge landraiders Stanks. It's about the average guy with a gun doing his best on the field of battle.

Let's leave out 40K comparisons- totally different game (much worse I might add), but I will concede that gazzors list is a bit like a 40k list with shooting infantry, hard hitting fast-movers and tanks.

Quote
:-( The spirit of the game should supercede any rules loopholes or exploitations.
Hear hear.
Good hard games played in good spirits with some drinks from the subsidised bar thrown in.

That army IS a loophole or exploitation. I don't know how you can say "Hear, Hear" when YOU are the one exploiting the game. Good hard games are not played with 2 Stanks, 4 great cannons and 8pd.

It isn't a loophole or exploitation, any games designer that gets more than $0.01 per book in pay or with any amout of experience should see this list coming, and either deal with it or accept it. It is legal so they must have accepted it, and warhammer is an unblanced game anyway. TBH I'd much rather face Gazzor's list than a cavalry bret list-(his is more interesting for a start) and remember, the bret list is the STANDARD list and not even cheesed up.

It could be a lot worse.

EDIT: few grammar mistakes.


15
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Favourite College of Magic?
« on: August 15, 2007, 10:55:15 AM »
Im a fire guy myself, I have that neat looking spec edition fire wizard and I figured it would be a little wierd to not use him as a fire wizard

You missed out the rolling eyes smiley there. If not...  :eusa_wall:

(assuming you mean the one that was talked about re: marshmellows)

16
Ah, cheers. Why didn't I see that... that's my plan down the drain.

17
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: The dwarf/Empire alliance - one-sided?
« on: August 15, 2007, 10:50:57 AM »
Although the consensus appears to be in favour of equal relationship, I would argue that the relationship is better for the dwarves than men. Not that is totally unequal or anything, just a bit better for dwarves as of the current WH calendar date.

WHY?

1. Empire can now perform many of the technological processes of dwarves. I'm not sure how we are progressing with full plate armour, but we should have the expertise. This means that we would not need dwarf-made products (in general).

2. The empire is far more forgiving. Dwarves just invaded on a whim, attacked their best allies, (they definitely started it) and then we forgave them. This seems a bit unequal.(and we gave up the crown thing)

3.Dwarves get free movement through empire lands- trade, transport, etc. All good stuff. The empire doesn't really get the same, as dwarves don't have much land and the mountains are also protected by empire forts.


Therfore I'd compare (not perfectly) the relationship between the two nations as between the USA (empire) and the UK (dwarves). One is much bigger and more formidable militarily and economically, the other has the respect of others (though not always friendship), small military and lots of technology.

18
The Count's Tavern / Re: Animosity 2 campaign: Sands of War
« on: August 15, 2007, 10:36:58 AM »
Where did you get all the fluff from? I recall there isn't a lot about araby apart from the crusades. If you guys are making it up, well done- its a mammoth task.

Where is it set, and on what scales- e.g. is sartosa involved, does the map stretch to the coast? I recall (again) that the deserts are rather large.

Will the team apply weights to give different races different levels of participation? Or will you use most-posts-takes-all?

No worries if things aren't decided yet, and sorry for the bombardment of questions.

19
The Count's Tavern / Re: Animosity 2 campaign: Sands of War
« on: August 14, 2007, 03:06:41 PM »
Is this is conjunction with Da Warpath?

20
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Favourite College of Magic?
« on: August 13, 2007, 04:32:28 PM »
Has to be beasts/amber... bear's anger is stunning, I love the bolt thrower spell (since I've never used a bolt thrower before) and movement spells just rock in any lore.

The anti monster spell has saved my ass so many times (from rhinox riders, shaggoths, dragons...) and given enough time to cannonball-in-the-face the real nasties.

Ah.. missed chumpchange's post. Everything he said too.

21
(And btw a "filthy hard magic list" to play against would have to have 4 spell-casters in it. And you don't tend to get too many of those.  :icon_wink:)

Unlike this list which only has... 4 casters- AL, and 3 wizards.

The AL gets two bound spells and the light spell. And you don't consider it to be a caster?  :icon_question:

22
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Lances
« on: August 12, 2007, 03:54:29 PM »
Well, in fact it relies on assumptions. But, in order for the principle to work, you would need to have a sheathed sword (or similar). Most people like to clarify WYSIWYG- certainly with characters.

23
Funny thing is, I thought that too. So, I checked the BRB, and I may be just uselss, but I can't find that rule in character or psychology sections. So I assumed its allowed...  :engel:

24
Now that (at least in my book ) people can join flaggies- would two wizards (or other characters in fact- a WP and captain might be very interesting in a big flaggies block with archer shield) in a load of them be any more attractive?

Because, if you try bear's anger on themselves, or on the profit(er) of doom, you get a lot of attaacks in a first round. Note the pun.

So, two beast wizard w/ bear's anger plus 20 flaggies plus crazy bonuses, say 7 wide and that's 8 S5 attacks from wizards, 11 S5 attacks from flaggies, plus possibility of hatred/re-roll wounds.

25
WHFB The Electors' Forum / Re: Empire mobility
« on: August 11, 2007, 01:37:36 PM »
I'm also encouraged by hearing that Empire can be an aggressive, attacking army. But perhaps you can help me a bit more. I'm having trouble understanding how the army can incorporate their move-or-shoot handguns/crossbows and artillery with aggressive cavalry and infantry without making life difficult for shooters by blocking line of sight. I would have thought that, holding a battle-line and advancing would cause great troubles, especially for warmachines, that are trying to see their targets. How do you aggressive Empire players get around that?

With regards to handgunners and Xbows, by taking them in small detachments (like 5 or 6) you can move around them and hills (as menitoned before) remove the LoS problem altogether- but I find this to be a problem and concluded I would drop Hgs/Xbows in favour of archers, who can move and shoot.

With warmachines, line of site is actually quite easy to maintain, but good positioning is needed. Once again, hills are great, but even without them you can manage pretty well. Something I learnt real quick (coming from 40k a few years ago) was that you won't always have full choice of targets and so you have to place your cannon in the right way, to see the right troops.(This does make deployment very important)

So, warmachines are generally good on flanks, where they can see a lot and if you put them near fast knights/pisotliers, then the mounted troops will actually be out of your shooting lane very quickly, leaving a wide choice of targets.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 66