| Welcome to The Chamber of the Everchosen. We hope you enjoy your visit! Here at COTEC we are all about the Warriors of Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Tactics to help you slaughter your opponent on the tabletop, through to galleries on how to build your next Warshrine. Its all covered... and growing! We are a forum for gamers and hobbyist alike and again would like to welcome you to a fun, friendly, warm place and hope to see you again! Join our legion! Takes less than a minute and gives you access to everything! If you're already a member please log in to your account by entering the correct runes and words of power: |
| How can i use the hell cannon efficiently? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 23 2014, 04:34 PM (3,126 Views) | |
| Sirius Centauri | Jul 1 2014, 11:55 AM Post #106 |
|
Slave
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Im not making something up, you are. I hate Loophole Nazis. Number one, the game is about the fun of it. If your friends dont mind you playing with wrong sized base (its wrong because it gives more angle of attack if it is 150mm via 100mm) Then play it and dont spray it. But if you are asking if you should do it, honestly the answer is no. If the unit type of the Hellcannon was War Machine, I would say go for it. However, being the unit type is Monster, playing the front edge as 150 gives the hellcannon a slightly better advantage as it can see more it in front arc. |
![]() |
|
| Koalita | Jul 1 2014, 12:31 PM Post #107 |
|
Warrior of the Chamber
|
Actually, if you use the 1920x1080 argument, try to visualize a 100x150 'monitor'. You usually don't see things from a flank, so you are either viewing it from top or front/rear. If it's a base and there is a model on top of it, it's more logic to be viewing it from top and having it 'facing' front, which in your monitor would be the up side. Which happens to be the 100 side. I think bases are for something more than just a rule. Using cavalry that charges sideways is wrong, and if you have 2 rows, how are you going to keep base to base contact? Cavalry is the biggest no-no imho. You can't have cavalry formations using that kind of basing (letting the model 'stand out'). |
![]() |
|
| Berghofer | Jul 1 2014, 02:01 PM Post #108 |
|
The Undivided
|
You are arguing this again? This guy has this argument right. It can't be used to justify that the units description on the GW page shows the intented way to put models on their bases. The one and only thing that makes it obvioius is that it is the way GW, the creator of the models and the game, mounted it that way on the base themselves. Every other reason that it is wrong to use the 150mm side as the front is flawed. -Jofarin is right that there is no rule illigalizing it. -Jofarin is wrong when claiming that it is illogical to say that it is not intented to have the 100 mm side as front. -It is right to call someone a jerkhammer player when they try to use these kind of things to their advantage. -It is wrong to call people doing this for non-jerk reasons (maybe they thought it looked better, hadn't thought about it at all, etc...) for cheaters. If you dislike it, point it politely out to them, and give them time (days/weeks) to consider this for themselves (It isn't exactly a gamechanging thing to do, but when done for the wrong reasons, it is a jerk move). I hardly think that most people would be ok with a soulgrinder with the 100mm side as it's front ;) (This is still not a reply to you Jofarin, so don't think I'm going to start reading or answering any of your newer posts again in this particular thread) Edited by Berghofer, Jul 1 2014, 02:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jofarin | Jul 1 2014, 02:54 PM Post #109 |
|
Clanlord
|
If I look at it from the top and have it facing to the left, as is common rule to read from left to right, order things in a shelf from left to right, etc. I`ll have the left as the front and according to your height/width argument the 150mm front. Just because you make up that top=front, doesn`t make it metric or right. @Berghofer saying I said something: I didn`t. IF GW made a huge exception, this (the website shows the only true facing) could be totally true. BUT you can build your model differently, than shown on the site, paint it differently, arrange it differently and a head judge claims it being ok leads to a really low chance to that being true. What IS illogical is claiming from an example, that something else is forbidden. |
![]() |
|
| Urian | Jul 1 2014, 03:30 PM Post #110 |
|
Warrior of the Chamber
|
LOL more popcorn! wow, saying [ as is common rule to read from left to right ] is very narrow minded. Doesn't help your arguments... if you feel I have to explain this, be kind to yourself and ..... (whatever you do, don't make a fool of yourself)... edit: I'm busy at the moment, I've to rebase all my chariots... anyone a good suggestion how to make a chariot standing on his back, peeking at the air, look good? My opponents won't allow me to let them fly... Edited by Urian, Jul 1 2014, 03:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jofarin | Jul 1 2014, 07:21 PM Post #111 |
|
Clanlord
|
Is there an option to read this forum from right to left or from top to bottom? It is correct, that other cultures read top to bottom (chinese) or left to right (arabic), but we are in an english speaking forum, so here it is common rule. Relaying front to top is as right as relaying front to the left. So you can't pin one as correct and the other as wrong. There is no metric definition of this and even if there were, GW wouldn't follow it (see Soul Grinder). This whole argument is totally made up. Berghofer is totally right on this, you can only make one argument that isn't totally wrong and that one is no proof: IF GW intended to only have you base things like shown on the website, this would be wrong. GW didn't say anything in this direction, nobody knows the intentions of GW, a head judge ruled the opposite and everything else that is visible on the website can normally be chaged (besides the fact, that you have to use GW/FW models for games in a GW shop). This is still no proof, that it HAS to be this way, but the likelyhood that this is made up is way bigger than the likelyhood that that rule is intended to exist. |
![]() |
|
| GeneralofChaos42 | Jul 1 2014, 08:20 PM Post #112 |
|
The Puppet Master
|
Jofarin: your high school debate team, must have been awesome! [get them killer] |
![]() |
|
| Jdo | Jul 1 2014, 09:28 PM Post #113 |
|
Exalted Guardian
|
games workshop has loaded pictures of units (with bases) on website. |
![]() |
|
| Colobos | Jul 1 2014, 11:01 PM Post #114 |
|
The Chosen
|
For what it's worth, I'm running a 110 man tournament in 3 weeks in the England and it will be ruled like the last one big tournament I went to. 150mm x 100mm is fine as it's not illegal and having the larger frontage has disadvantages as well as advantages. The stipulation at the previous event I attended was that there must be parity, so if it's used as 150mm x 100mm in game one, you play it like that for all your games, which seemed fair. |
![]() |
|
| Berghofer | Jul 2 2014, 03:24 AM Post #115 |
|
The Undivided
|
@Colobos: Seems like a fair way to rule it, having to use it the same way in all the games. Still think it is a little weird not just to adhere to how the models are standing on the bases on the website. Best of luck with the tournament though. |
![]() |
|
| Jofarin | Jul 2 2014, 12:11 PM Post #116 |
|
Clanlord
|
Most if not all people will do anyways. |
![]() |
|
| Koalita | Jul 2 2014, 09:51 PM Post #117 |
|
Warrior of the Chamber
|
The point was the rank and file of the cav. I cant see a unit of 3x5 cav formation with that basing. Once addressed Ill point the flaws of the left-to-right argument |
![]() |
|
| Jofarin | Jul 3 2014, 12:39 AM Post #118 |
|
Clanlord
|
And you being blind is my problem how? |
![]() |
|
| Koalita | Jul 3 2014, 03:26 AM Post #119 |
|
Warrior of the Chamber
|
First of all, one thing is to argue, to discuss something, another is to be unpolite. You can think that I am blind, but saying so is bad manners. I will point to your arguments, I'd like you to do the same. That said, I always liked the idea of a 150x100 cannon, it is acceptable, it sounds fun; but I dislike the idea of using it for other units claiming 'it does not say you can't'. Cavalry bases are what, 25x50? You said, as counterargument of Chariots being a problem, that you saw no problem seeing a model clinging like how a DP is bigger than its base. How can you form a unit of 50x25 cavalry that are clinging, and still have them base to base? Are you saying that way the cav would occupy 4 times as much space? Or what is your 'there is no problem with any unit' argument for the cavalry being based like that? You wanted to discuss, do it properly and provide arguments, even if only for the fun of having a talk. |
![]() |
|
| Jofarin | Jul 3 2014, 05:47 AM Post #120 |
|
Clanlord
|
I can say “I see no problem“ and don`t have to say anything else, because I don`t for the love of god see a gpddamn problem. IF you see a problem, you either say what you see or you`re the problem. If you can`t see a 3*5 cav unit with that basing, you either don`t say what your problem is or you literally can`t see and then you`re blind. I give you the benefit odf the doubt and say you`re not the problem, maybe you are blind... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Tactics · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:19 PM Jul 11