BeaverBeliever

No, you do not get Poison with Magic Weapons, Pg. 73. Same as Flaming Attacks as far as I can tell.

Then why have them at all? This isn't directed at Burk, but I think he brings up the cause for some complaints. If the event is just for fun, getting together and throwing dice, then why even remotely incentivize/emphasize winning? I think it'd be great to just do away with it for an event, and IMO that would really make it standout as different. Whenever someone has asked this question, I'm not sure if I've ever seen someone answer it with any gravitas; maybe I missed that post, though.

It would have been funny if the scale went from "Fantastic" to "Super Fantastic" :D

1 is labeled "Fantastic Event" and 5 is labeled "Terrible Event."

Was this 1 rating due to the player or due to the army list? Maybe I'm mistaken but I wouldn't think that rating them a 1 based upon their list is the right thing to do; it was passed by the committee (I would assume), and while it may have been hard, I don't think it's fair to give them a sports hit based solely on their list. And maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, so apologies in advance if I am (I can't tell if your two sentences are related or not :) ).

I've been at work for almost 13 hours today and this took me a moment too long to process; brain no compute But well said, otherwise. I need to go home now....

Then why keep track of teams winning/losing at all? I know this has been brought up before, and it may be too late for this year, but if the focus is to take away incentive to get to the podium, then why keep track? Just award for sports, paint, and whatever else seems like fun (scenarios, secret objectives, bingo cards of random achievements, etc.). And we may say that sports is the most prestigious award, and I think most strive for it, but there is a best overall award which inherently says that it has a higher place. Anyway, I just think that all of this comp and list debate is small change compared to the bigger money of the current structured team competition.

It's about halfway down the page: http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/21684-ofcc-tournament-packet/

Mostly just bad timing for half the team. Autumn is super busy for them.

I posted our team here (7th post down): http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/18850-ofcc-2014-team-check-in/page-2 I've also emailed Bronson as our captain. Krieger may be the only one that's paid so far (I keep forgetting!), so if that's the metric you're going by then that might be why we're missing. It will just be four of us this year, though.

Yeah lighting and white balance are definitely my two main issues right now. Hopefully I'll have something worked out next time I snap some pics.

I sure am a slow painter. Here are two more Waywatchers: I tried for some better lighting, which seemed to work on this first guy: But this guy's photos didn't turn out so hot, imo (bad camera + bad photo editing/balancing skills + still mediocre lighting): The metal on both of them needs to be retouched, but overall I'm pretty happy. Anyway, hope you like them!

We accept your challenge!

The Order of the Black Sheep would like to issue two challenges: Challenge, the first: WCP-II, we want to play some Canadians! Challenge, the second: Dimensional Cascade, we want to play our fellow US Masters GT organizers!

I will be up there with my Warriors.

Thanks, guys! I've really been enjoying putting some variety onto the bases. Really brings them to life.

Here you go: http://www.borderlandsgames.com/2014/04/warhammer-fantasy-tournament-3/

... and yet now I find myself on the bandwagon My crappy camera and photography skills aside, I hope these are enjoyable. I've always wanted to do Wood Elves as a dark, unknown, guerrilla force coming from the woods, and I think these test models have fit the bill; unfortunately, due to the already dark tones and poor camera setup, these look a bit bleh. I think they look pretty good IRL, though: Hey, look who's out of focus: Guess who doesn't have a tripod and has poor lighting?

Order of the Black Sheep Ben Sathrum, Warriors of Chaos Chris Bailey, Daemons of Chaos Paul Willworth, Lizardmen Wiley Kinyon, Tomb Kings

I would argue for 2 because of the "can" (emphasis mine, above). I think it would be "can only" if Transformation was your only option. I also think that "instead of the usual signature spell" indicates that you can still only swap one spell, since you can only swap for the signature spell once normally. I also agree with MN that you could swap from either lore, which I think is supported by the usage of "usual signature spell" rather than just Wyssan's (i.e., if they had intended it to be just from Beasts, they needn't be so vague... but I suppose that's not GW's strong suit).

Only a couple things I'd change: I'd trade in one of the harpy units for another bolt thrower (I think they're about the same points?). I think two units is more than enough since you have a ton of other fast cav, and since they panic much easier (possibly causing more panic elsewhere in more important units), I'd limit them. I'd split the warlocks to give you more chances at Doombolt or Soulblight, and to give you more area to threaten with them. You may have too many units demanding power dice at that point, but I think you'd get more utility and threat from two units. Minor tweaks, but I think the list would be very competitive either way.

Ah, I see. I still can't seem to find a reason why that's not possible, so I'd say go for it (I'm assuming Malekith's hits are on a "model" rather than "character" with a magic item?).

1) Pg 94, "Standard Bearers and Casualties": "the standard bearer cannot normally be removed as a casualty unless only he and the champion ... remain in the unit. This applies even if the standard bearer is the target of an effect that affects only a single model.... Another rank and file warrior is still assumed to pick up the banner." That's all I could find other than on Pg 48, "Who Can Strike?": "Normally, a warrior can only strike blows against an enemy model in base contact." So, I would assume you could direct your attacks like that, but it shouldn't make a difference as far as I could tell. How did this come up in your game? 2). Pg 76, "Me 'Ead 'Urts": "A unit that fails its Stupidity test ... cannot take any further action that turn, so cannot declare charges...." And then under Frenzy, Pg 70, "Berserk Rage": "If ... a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, then it must do so unless a Leadership test is passed. If the Leadership test is failed, the Frenzied unit must declare a charge...." Therefore, I believe that since you're Stupid (wow that sounds bad out of context :D ) and couldn't declare a charge (emphasis mine, above), then no test is needed.

As long as you're only engaged on one side, I believe that would be legal.

Excellent. Thanks, guys!