Merlin

Members
  • Content count

    1,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Merlin

  • Rank
    Strategos (General)

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,308 profile views
  1. No. The MAR says "If THIS model successfully places AP on board and enemy model during the Close Quarter Battle Step...." So the model, not the AP pool, has to have AP left after Anti-Boarding AA to board with. So if 3 Nakatsu board a dreadnought but 8AP are killed to AA fire. If your opponent chooses to kill off all 8AP from two of the cruisers, then only the last cruiser can supply the Terror Tactics bonus. However, because the attacker chooses where his casualties go he can allocate all lost AP like so: 3AP, 3AP, and 2AP leaving the cruisers with 1AP, 1AP, and 2AP respectively, after AA fire. This means he can get the full bonus dice from the MAR without any difficulties.
  2. That's what I said. The fact it says "this" model means it's done on a model by model basis, and since the attacker chooses where his casualties go he can always make sure he can gain the bonus. @Nazduruk_Bugzappa In the new edition, if you want to stop Terror Tactics, you have to kill all of the AP in the Anti-Boarding Fire step. And as above, if the attacking models only lose enough AP to leave a single AP on each ship, then he gains the Bonus from the MAR on every ship.
  3. No. It hasnt changed. Once the remaining AP gets through the AA fire, you add the extra dice as normal from each model. If a model has no AP after AA fire then Terror Tactics can't go into affect from that model as there are no more AP from that model to terrorise the target. But the other ships are fine. Simples
  4. I prefer the Beschtuzer myself. Gives the battlecruiser more threat potential and a boost to it's broadsides. The Havels are ok as well, but i only bring them when i dont have other carriers in the list.
  5. Well, for a start, the Prussian battlescribe files have never been fully updated, since the Wachter is costed at 25pts in the program files, instead of 20pts it should be. Second, I wouldn't bother with the Tesla on the Kaiser Karl. It really doesn't need it and it's a waste of a perfectly good turret slot. Let the dreadnought take the lead with it following behind for a one, two punch.
  6. Must admit, I had a laugh when I saw Spartan's second update on the Kickstarter page telling us to not grab our torches and pitchforks before releasing the newsletter about the July pre-order for v2.5 and the Egyptians. A great feat of damage control before damage could be done...
  7. Speerschleuders always worked like that.
  8. It was never considered a strong small in v1.1. And in my opinion, back then, if a Prussian player brought the Stolz he was a fool. The frigate had way more utility for 25pts. And the same is true of v2.0. The frigate is just way better than the Stolz in its previous and current form in every way.
  9. Because it means that they don't have to change anything else on the model other than increase the arc to 90 degrees and move the AD it has to RB2&3. It's already slow, and with a bombard so it doesn't need to go fast. It wants to be in RB2 and 3. Not RB1. Pack Tactics works with Indirect Fire. So at RB3 it can get 16AD both directly and Indirectly. This is huge for a force that lacks hard hitting RB3 firepower, with only two other Bombard weapons in the fleet (soon to be 3) that only has 9AD each in RB3. It couldn't hide from fliers or large skimmers anyway...so I don't see the point your getting at. And ultimately, it's current role as a Close Range Shotgun hasnt worked for it since....ever. From v1 to v2, it has consistently been considered the worst destroyer in the game. Changing it's weapons to a Bombard makes the most sense based on the model and it's current stats and it gives a new dimension to the Prussian arsenal without needing a brand new model.
  10. The Tesla was boosted already, and I do not see it needing a further boost in the Orbat....unless they get a D6 extra move
  11. @Spartan Josh & @Spartan Mike After reading the Russian version of the Ice Generator, I'm now curious about one specific aspect of the Prussian and Danish Calcification Generator. It was something that disappointed me in v2 but might be corrected this edition, but will the Prussian and Danish Calcification Generators be renamed back to the Ultrasonic Pulverizer Generator? The name is just so much better than Calcification and it describes what it does quite literally. Plus, saying U.P.G when declaring attacks is way cooler than Calcification. It'll also be better than calling it "Prussian Empire Entropy Generators" EDIT: The same treatment can be made for all of the specific and extremely special versions of the generic generators in the rulebook. For example, the Russian Ice Generator can stay named the Glacier Generator, as opposed to the "Russian Coalition Ice Generator" and all that needs to be done is reword the start of these generators rules with: "This generator uses the the rules for an Ice Generator, with the following...." or something like that. It adds more fluff elements to these special versions of the generators in the rulebook without changing how they work. And in all seriousness, the fluff could do with padding out.....extra fluff in the rulebook not withstanding.
  12. They can be. It's no stretch of the imagination to assume that the weapon can elevate enough to shoot over other vessels. And if your just going to go by what is on the model, then like I said before, the Sturmbringer shouldn't have 270 degree arc of fire as that weapon is clearly fixed fore. Besides, Spartan can just slap a Ausf-B label on it and what the model has won't matter. Because it's no longer the same weapon. But since it's expensive to design and cast new models, they may as well stick with the original model as it won't be that different aesthetically. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how the Stolz weapons look, because Spartan has already proven that how a model looks doesn't matter when it comes to the stats. Calling it a Bombard and widening the Arc to 90 degrees and pushing it's AD to RB2 and 3 is the least ridiculous thing Spartan can do to it and it gives the Prussians a bit more flexibility in an area it's not strong in.
  13. It doesn't even have to be a Tesla Bombard. Just being a Bombard will work well enough for me.
  14. So they operate as a subset of rules within the Prussian Empire Orbat? For example, if you play as a Prussian commander, you get one set of universal special rules and and access to specific special character Commodores. But if you want to play as a Teutonic Order commander, you only have access to a different set of universal special rules and access to their special character Commodores. And these would be inside the Preussian Orbat? Or They will have two separate Orbat documents, but to all intents and purposes they are the same force and you can pick and choose units from both Orbat to create a force? Either way, it's good to see this happen. A separate standalone Teutonic Orbat as an alliance nation was pointless.
  15. The Stolz could easily pass as a Bombard. And if you really think that it's too much of an abstraction to think that it can, based on the model, then look no further than the Sturmbringer to snap back to reality. Its Bombard is completely fixed in place on the model, yet has a 270 degree arc of fire in it's stats. Where's the logic, or WYSIWYG of that? In short, if the Sturmbringer bombard can have a 270 degree arc of fire, then the Stolz can be made into a Bombard. And of the two, the Stolz is the easier pill to swallow and the least abstract.