View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 15th, 2018, 9:30 am

Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 Facebook questions 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 514
A couple of questions have come up in the Facebook group, and the originator has given me permission to relay them here, to ensure they are seen. Linking to specific posts from the group is hard (if there's a way to do it that I haven't figured out, please let me know and I can link to them here.)

Reave seems stupid. I rarely see high-damage units with the ability, which means that it is pretty rare to eliminate a unit from play with a unit that has Reave. Waste of ink, in my opinion. It should probably proc on every hit, or have some damage minimum to allow the player to draw. Especially with as often as we draw now. ... 514562292/
I disagree that Reave is useless, since overall card draw is slightly lower in 2.1 with the removal of the hand reset during cleanup and the change in skills from draws to flips. That said, I do agree with the point that Reave is hard to achieve due to low damage numbers on some units.

"A unit never suffers damage when falling from a piece of terrain that it would normally have to climb or scale."
I take this to mean that units with Fly do not take damage from falling? ... 424565001/
Fly only applies to Free Movement, not Forced movement, so yes, units will Fly still take falling damage based on their size and the elevation change. It was noted that it is odd that units with Fly would still suffer falling damage. It was also noted (by multiple individuals) that the part about "normally have to climb or scale" seems to omit units with Fly, since they do not normally have to climb or scale anything...

Cohesion: Squads get EITHER 3" horizontally OR 6" vertically. That makes no sense, especially given that we measure distances between objects diagonally. This rule as written would mean that a squad's cohesion would be broken if one model were 1" away from Size 2 terrain if another model in that squad were on the terrain. ... 094564534/
This was brought up before, and I thought it was mentioned that the wording would revert to the 1e rules, where cohesion allowed 3" horizontally AND 6" vertically. Additionally, this section is in direct conflict with the earlier section that states to measure diagonally when appropriate. Two possibilities: This section stays, and simply supersedes the diagonal measurement, or the diagonal measurement takes precedent and this section is unnecessary.

I think that if the game size allows, and you are running a Void/Radiant Knight, that sub-faction minions should be allowed if you have a sub-faction hero. For instance, Harbonath + Beastmaster + Dahon. Or Tahariel + Sophia + Black Dragons. etc. ... 931226917/
This is an interesting suggestion. I haven't mulled it over enough to have an opinion yet. Forwarding to ensure it is seen.

Another question I have that could be clarified. The rules are clear, but I don't like the rule and I am looking for some leeway. Regarding Objective marker placement, requiring a 30mm space around it is annoying as the terrain I like to use at my FLGS doesnt leave much space to put tokens except in the wide open. There are lots of levels with broken buildings where the marker fits with space on two sides, a wall on one side, and a drop to the ground on the other side. If objectives are Size 3, what if the 30mm buffer zone was possible on all sizes but not always at ground level? for instance, an objective next to a Size 2 crate? Units could make "contact" with the size 3 objective still. ... 781233132/
My response was basically 'that sould be fine as long as both players agree, as it satisfies the intent of the rule'. But this brings up an interesting sitation: What about a cadre that doesn't have any units with a 30mm base? There are currently two leaders without cyphers - Amelial, Avatar of the Void and Codebreaker v9.0, and both could conceivably lead cadres consisting only of 40mm+ bases. I think the 30mm space requirement is fair, but if a player doesn't consider that when building a cadre, it's possibly to create a cadre that couldn't interact with an opponent's objective, assuming the opponent realizes this and is able to place the objective someplace that satisfies the 30mm rule but doesn't have enough space for a 40mm base...

"An object subjected to forced movement can only move over open ground regardless of its size."
What is this trying to tell me? ... 841239026/
That a large unit contacting a smaller object during a forced movement stopsm even though the larger unit would ignore the smaller (non-enemy unit) object during a free movement. Easily answered, and his assumption about the rule was correct (asking for confirmation) but I think a diagram/example might help confusion.

July 4th, 2017, 3:40 am
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2012, 1:25 am
Posts: 321
Location: Australia
On faction minions with a faction hero in a Void/Radiant list: I think that's a good houserule or even specific event rule, but I wouldn't want to see it become standard (mostly because of the extra complications for testing and balance).

On Objective Placement. This is something I'm learning (sometimes the hard way) through testing. Firstly this rule is necessary and should be followed. Secondly, and this is the hard part, less terrain is a good thing in Relic Knights. Most units have an 11" threat range to mess with shooting and the new engagement rules make it much easier to lock a unit down, so open terrain becomes important for keeping the game balanced between the different ranges. Unlike other games where blocking long lines of fire is critical to game balance, in RK having them is critical to balance.

Everything else seems covered in the initial post.

Australian Soda Pop Community On Facebook
South East QLD Relic Knights on Facebook

July 4th, 2017, 4:20 am
Profile WWW
Bottle Cap
User avatar

Joined: March 5th, 2017, 2:17 am
Posts: 12
Thank you for posting my questions here. It usually takes my posts a while to get approved and I prefer more rapid fire conversation.

July 4th, 2017, 4:59 am
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2012, 5:11 am
Posts: 514
Given your stated reasoning that you've got a game planned on the holiday, it makes sense you'd want to get the questions answered asap. Hopefully you're past probation and can get posts through immediately now :)

Likewise, weld love to see more voices in the comments here, so please consider cross-linking from here to FB in the future :D

July 4th, 2017, 11:42 am
Ninja Corps
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2012, 12:17 pm
Posts: 346
Obsidian-Crane wrote:
On faction minions with a faction hero in a Void/Radiant list: I think that's a good houserule or even specific event rule, but I wouldn't want to see it become standard (mostly because of the extra complications for testing and balance).

There's also the issue that it makes the factions lose their distinction quite a bit. If that rule were in place, given the Facebook poster's example, the only reason to build a Noh list instead of a Void list with a bunch of Noh models in it is that you like a certain Noh Knight more than Harbonath.

Soldancer wrote:

July 5th, 2017, 2:39 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.