I thought I'd start a thread to collate constructive comment on rules;
2.3.8.8 - if we're rounding to the nearest inch why is the minimum 0.5"?
More later . . .
Rules quirks/notes for consideration
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
P.29 example, I think the Werewulfas is the wrong way round in the picture.
- Rob Lane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
- Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
- Contact:
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
Sigh... I can't resist.
2.3.8.8 - bloody good spot. That should be just "rounding up any fractions to the nearest inch"
P.29 example - you are correct, good spot! I'll turn him around. That's what happens when you're doing things at 10pm on a Friday night...
Thanks Kenton.
2.3.8.8 - bloody good spot. That should be just "rounding up any fractions to the nearest inch"
P.29 example - you are correct, good spot! I'll turn him around. That's what happens when you're doing things at 10pm on a Friday night...
Thanks Kenton.
Mierce Miniatures
https://mierce-miniatures.com
https://mierce-miniatures.com
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
No worries, no response required. I'll post 'em as I spot em and you can get em sorted. That's what KS and beta is about after all
- Rob Lane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
- Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
- Contact:
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
No worries!
But... please don't use the "beta" word... it's one of my irrational pet hates. "Beta!" Bah! These rules are no such thing, they're not second, nor are they a program!
(can you hear the sound of my Enguish... geddit)
Rob
But... please don't use the "beta" word... it's one of my irrational pet hates. "Beta!" Bah! These rules are no such thing, they're not second, nor are they a program!
(can you hear the sound of my Enguish... geddit)
Rob
Mierce Miniatures
https://mierce-miniatures.com
https://mierce-miniatures.com
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
Fair enough.
8.2.2.6 the wounded warrior.
Whilst I completely understand and agree with this concept from a bookkeeping simplification point of view it effectively means that monstrous (and other) infantry units can be able to ignore and loss of attack dice through injury as long as they have a single model out of the combat currently being resolved.
If I therefore attack two units with my monstrous infantry and engage with all of them, assume one is on only 1 constitution, I should lose some attack dice. The wounded warrior rule will ensure that I lose none. Even if we do pick one to lose dice who gets to do it needs to be cleared up.
I'm afraid that I think it needs to be marked but must still be first removed - this also leaves opportunity for manipulation but at least the damage penalty is applied. If there was no penalty for being damaged then this would not be an issue.
8.2.2.6 the wounded warrior.
Whilst I completely understand and agree with this concept from a bookkeeping simplification point of view it effectively means that monstrous (and other) infantry units can be able to ignore and loss of attack dice through injury as long as they have a single model out of the combat currently being resolved.
If I therefore attack two units with my monstrous infantry and engage with all of them, assume one is on only 1 constitution, I should lose some attack dice. The wounded warrior rule will ensure that I lose none. Even if we do pick one to lose dice who gets to do it needs to be cleared up.
I'm afraid that I think it needs to be marked but must still be first removed - this also leaves opportunity for manipulation but at least the damage penalty is applied. If there was no penalty for being damaged then this would not be an issue.
- Rob Lane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
- Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
- Contact:
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
Whilst I completely understand and agree with this concept from a bookkeeping simplification point of view it effectively means that monstrous (and other) infantry units can be able to ignore and loss of attack dice through injury as long as they have a single model out of the combat currently being resolved.
Indeed so, but only through injury. If a warrior is dead, it's removed from play.
If I therefore attack two units with my monstrous infantry and engage with all of them, assume one is on only 1 constitution, I should lose some attack dice. The wounded warrior rule will ensure that I lose none. Even if we do pick one to lose dice who gets to do it needs to be cleared up.
I'm really not sure what you mean - you do lose attack dice because the wounded warrior is engaged in the example you've given (The Wounded Warrior, third paragraph). This is the relevant rule:
"If all of the Attacking unit's warriors are engaged in combat, the Attacker may choose which warrior is the wounded warrior when Attacking; for the wounded warrior could of course have reduced attack dice. Otherwise, a warrior that is not engaged in combat is the wounded warrior whilst his unit is Attacking. This is only right, for wounded warriors would hang back rather than put themselves further at risk."
So if all of your monstrous infantry is engaged, you choose which one is the wounded warrior and thus the one with reduced attack dice.
I'm afraid that I think it needs to be marked but must still be first removed - this also leaves opportunity for manipulation but at least the damage penalty is applied. If there was no penalty for being damaged then this would not be an issue.
I think you've read it wrong to be honest - there is a penalty for being wounded.
You have to understand one thing here: we want miniatures to kill each other. The more attack dice that can be applied, the better we like it. In this instance, we could have forced one miniature engaged to be the wounded warrior; but we chose not to.
Cheers
Rob
Mierce Miniatures
https://mierce-miniatures.com
https://mierce-miniatures.com
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
I think you're right. I didn't read carefully enough. I'll be more careful.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
P2.
Please rephrase the following sentence: 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to say 'REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY' as the former has a different meaning.
P2.
Please rephrase the following: 'These rules' (under the header 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to either say 'These quickstarter rules' or 'Quickstarter rules' as it is good to note which rules/what kind of rulebook the user is reading.
P2.
Change the following sentence: 'In effect the QuickStarter rules are the very basic rules of Darklands,' to be 'In effect the QuickStarter rules hold only the most basic of rules of Darklands,'.
Please rephrase the following sentence: 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to say 'REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY' as the former has a different meaning.
P2.
Please rephrase the following: 'These rules' (under the header 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to either say 'These quickstarter rules' or 'Quickstarter rules' as it is good to note which rules/what kind of rulebook the user is reading.
P2.
Change the following sentence: 'In effect the QuickStarter rules are the very basic rules of Darklands,' to be 'In effect the QuickStarter rules hold only the most basic of rules of Darklands,'.
- Rob Lane
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
- Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
- Contact:
Re: Rules quirks/notes for consideration
Hi Arden
I'm happy with "What you need to play".
Indeed so, I'll change that.
I'm happy with the current sentence I'm afraid!
Keep it up though, I'm always happy to receive this kind of thing.
Cheers
P2.
Please rephrase the following sentence: 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to say 'REQUIREMENTS TO PLAY' as the former has a different meaning.
I'm happy with "What you need to play".
P2.
Please rephrase the following: 'These rules' (under the header 'WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY' to either say 'These quickstarter rules' or 'Quickstarter rules' as it is good to note which rules/what kind of rulebook the user is reading.
Indeed so, I'll change that.
P2.
Change the following sentence: 'In effect the QuickStarter rules are the very basic rules of Darklands,' to be 'In effect the QuickStarter rules hold only the most basic of rules of Darklands,'.
I'm happy with the current sentence I'm afraid!
Keep it up though, I'm always happy to receive this kind of thing.
Cheers
Mierce Miniatures
https://mierce-miniatures.com
https://mierce-miniatures.com
Return to “Darklands Rules and Musters - Updates, Errata and Addenda”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests