Drak

it may be wounds for inside on just a misfire and no movement for a direct hit. but the objective is to have models killed by the tower so I could see it being both. and my recollection may not be spot on.

when Raindog tested this scenario out at the most recent rampage a misfire/direct hit resulted in the tower "shaking where it stood" and inflicted the wounds to models inside the tower.

I started the week after last years OFCC and keep finding more things to do! I have a teammate who wanted to play the new WE, boy does he have my sympathy for the workload he has to complete over the summer. I don't know how people do it.

it's a no-comp event and you're encouraged to bring strong yet still fun lists. IMO the open is an ideal place to showcase an etheral dread Saurian.

any chance the tourney packet can be updated to reflect the recent changes? that way it's a one-stop shop for all things OFCC?

I can't find anywhere where it says "4 monster limit" the only thing I found was: LIZARDMEN 1. Ripperdactyls: 8 2. Skink Skirmishers: 40 but if it does say 4 monster limit somewhere that I missed then it's as simple as that.

it is pass/fail now so whatevs. this list would put a pounding on armies/lists with mostly infantry with all those impact hits and thunderstomps.

+1 to MN

"good games by looking to get teams of similar skill levels against one another" is just another way to following the mentality that competitive games are better than random pairings. it's a symptom of competitiveness and byproduct of keeping track of win/loss records. in short I consider it a thinking error that keeps competitive play the focus. OFCC is one of the only forums for playing that I'm aware of that cares not who wins but about what kind of experience you had. with that as the foundation of the event structure you could comfortably do away with all the trappings of competivite "win/lose" play. doing so may disencourage some people from participating given that they could think "why spend the large sum of money to effectly play in a home-game environment." but it could better ensure the spirit of OFCC permiates all aspects of the event.

I disagree that wins and losses need I be tracked at all. if there is no longer an incentive to win and playing is what it's about then it doesn't matter who you play, just that you are. you only need to pair or match similar win/loss records if you are tryin to ascertain who is the "best general". get ride of the whole structure of pairing teams by their records and let teams face off based on other factors (ie challenges, names out of a hat, etc). then it becomes for about playing fun games (sportsmanship) maybe getting objectives but not "winning" and painting/hobbying really nice armies.

found the following on my vamps forum. Previously, people noted that blank table counts as "open terrain", which is listed as a type of "terrain", which mean technically that you treated the ENTIRE BOARD as dangerous terrain. The new ruling in WD claims you now only treat actual terrain pieces, as in physical things which are not blank table, as Dangerous Terrain. this may need futher investigating. upon further investigation in my part this was only a battle report comment, which I have been informed is not a reliable source.

raindog, why would the Calvary fail the open terrain dangerous test on a 1? the spell itself says 1 or 2.

I could provide numerous examples of a "fluff" VC army, but you'd also have to start by defining the term fluff. for me it's a list that tells or compliments a story or background. lists built upon that kind if premise can be more inclined towards "fluff" choices. the easiest form to follow is to build a list that adheres to the "blood line" perspective for VC.

just four? :(

disagree with your standpoint that "that unit got hosed". the FAQ should be interpreted to all like models, and not be taken as a "that specific" unit was addressed but it doesn't apply to my similar situation because they didn't say "xyz".

the virtual pivot would allow the random movement unit to essentially ignore the 1" rule during it's pivot. thus keeping the opposing unit from "railroading" it along a straight line. Raindog's clarification keeps the pivoting model from rotating into combat through base contact on it's flank with the intervening enemy unit. which also eliminates the equally confusing "you hit in the flank during your pivot how is that a charge?" situation.

agreeing with KGTW in this one.

wow, this list gets a near 4 rating critic and the choas dwarf list (relatively close with 3 montster and around 40 shots, different approach to point denial) is looked upon favorably? I will forever wonder at how the rating committee will do there job. that being said I've given up on tryin to suggestively "comp" a list and would advocate for a more standard method of coming to a collective 3. but that's a post for another time.

edittng my initial response to: "it looks no fun from my perspective" because of the some of the aforementioned criteria and my lack of experience against choas dwarfs. I won't try to make any suggestions as I don't know enough about the book to do so.

not sure if those ruling will apply to just the open or for the team event as well

sylvos created a page for these types of FAQ for the open. FYI. it's found on the ordo thread page. and he provided a ruling for this one already.

disagree. but that is why I asked

how does the lore of vamps IoN work when it targets a unit of hexwraiths? example: a unit of 10 hexwraiths has taken 6 wounds, 4 remain. a lv4 lore of vampires wizard casts IoN and the hexwraiths are within the range. how many hexwraiths get resurrected?

maybe it would help if you give a list of the teams and which captains have done this? in it's own thread so if there are team members hi are more active on the forum we can encourage out captians.

has to be vamps on General (lord). so that means a possible lv 2 of death but I think another vamps is the way to go. back up caster for if the general does vanish and further ion suppor which he will want when his gg do get into combat.