Whenever a model with Trample knocks down a foe, it performs an additional free hack against him. The free hack is at +2 as normal for all attacks on prone foes, and counts even if the Trampler is prone. If the model has still movement available, he may continue its movement after knocking down the foe, without receiving any free hacks for leaving a melee.
The PDF is 99% done and ready- just drop me a mail to email@example.com and I'll forward you a copy.
I will find an external proofreader once we know all the rules are in place but with many extra set of eyes from you playtesters we can probably catch any mistakes or oversight I have undoubtedly added in my last edits.
Things to keep in mind as you go through this:
any typos or glaring grammar errors?
Did I forget to update some rule we discussed on the forum?
Is there any profile...
Also check if your names are listed correctly in the credits - I think not all of you are there.
Should block/expert block work vs concentrated fire? As high CF could possibly cause a gruesome kill and block would not protect from that, it creates an interesting dynamic. But I find it hard to visualize the character sweeping away all the enemy arrows with one swipe of his shield.
What do you say?
Andy, just say that all range penalties are halved and group shooting is not allowed in your games, and you are all set.
This is how I fixed the "what is an unarmed model" conundrum. Since we have abilities that disarm, we needed to clarify which attack forms are weapon based. What do you say?
If a model is disarmed, reduce his C by 1 in melee only and ignore any Trait based on his weapon until he spends one action recovering the weapon. Weapon-based traits are marked by a (W) in the trait’s name. Note that an unarmed model with a martial arts traits (marked with a MA in the Trait’s...
Actually I had removed it already from the rules. I've been unable to concentrate due to flu this week, but as soon as I feel better I will send you guys an updated PDF
no bolt on rules - armor and shields are represented by traits. You want them, you take them, you do not want them, fine.
we have ONE level of armor, we will call it Heavily Armored. Lower levels of armor are assumed to be reflected by the figure's C score.
A Heavily Armored figure adds +1 to his C roll after the roll, when losing a combat. If this changes his being doubled, tripled, etc, it means that the armor has stopped the blow. In no case the...
that was my intent but maybe it is too harsh. I think we should change this to a character being knocked down saving only on a 6, but turning a knockdown or recoil into a no effect. Any other result would be an out of action.
I'm not sure if this forum, rather than the Yahoo group, is the correct place to post this, but as it arose from the discussion about the Savage rule in FiFu, I'll post it here for now (apologies if it's out of place).
With Savage now a personality rule in FiFu, I wonder if there's room in the game (SBH variants generally, rather than FiFu specifically) for a non-personality Fearsome rule. I like the Savage rule as a means of differentiating monstrous troops (big orcs, beastmen, etc.) from...
It sounds good. No time/space to add this to Fightin Fungi but I might fit in the next supplement.
I have uploaded a work in progress PDF with most of the amendments discussed so far. If I understand how gdrive works, you should be able to download it from the original link as it has the same name. If not, please drop me a mail at firstname.lastname@example.org and I'll share it again
Sure. And we will release the pdf to all backers and to the general buyers before the book is printed so the larger community will help us find any inconsistencies or typos.
I'd imagine that she'd work as a classic "eggs in one basket" character. She's very powerful, but she's still vulnerable to concentrated fire or even aimed shots from more powerful shooters. A Goblin Chosen Archer would be shooting at her at parity at Short range if he used an aimed shot.
Also, Group Fighter doesn't offer that much protection from the number of decent melee fighters you could get for the same points.
This Trait may be applied only to models with a maximum Q of 4 and C of 2. Models with Gang may perform Group Activations without the presence of a Leader. They still get a +1 to Q rolls if in range of a Leader and the bonus from Gregarious.
If a model in the Gang is Gruesomely Killed, however, all models in the Gang test Morale at -1.
I did the same with 1/72 Caesar orcs and goblins.
I think all models with the gang ability can group up. In specific scenarios you might want to treat them as separate entities (for example two rival goblin clans asked to cooperate) but as a general rule if you paid the points for gang trait you should be allowed to use it. You use the lowest Q in the bunch just like any group activation.
Hi. Attention wandered for a bit, so wanted to see if I've missed it ...
Have the reaction rules settled? I'd like to try again. The idea appeals to me, but I'd like to have some assurance about a couple things:
1) slowing things down: I think not limiting will make this a bit faster. maybe not reacting when a turnover happens will help, too
2) increasing the high/low Quality gap: I'm afraid this will happen. Gang may help the goblins, but I don't want to need a special ability to balance the...
That makes sense. So something like a Q5, C5 troll remains a risky option rather than a "leave it to the end and let's see" special.
Here are a few scenarios that will be in the book. the first two are simpler. I am of course more interested in hearing from you testers about the others. I am writing more, if they will not fir in the book I will print them later in Talespinner or have them as free PDFs.
This is the simplest scenario. Players dice to determine attacker and defender. Players alternate placing four to eight scenic items (the defender decides how many) on the tabletop. No scenic feature can be larger...
Actually, perhaps the set-up to the game might be that a member of the defending warband has been trapped under a mushroom in the process of harvesting some particularly valuable fungus (a rare fungus that grows on other fungi?). That gives a rationale for both his rescue and the importance of his escape. For what it's worth ...
We tried a three-player game yesterday. I'd said that we'd need to do without reactions, but my son was insistent that we would not. So, when one of my childhood-gaming friends came round, we decided just to keep reactions in and see how they worked. I thought about having the "non-active" players alternating for reactions, but decided that it would be too fiddly. Instead, we allowed both non-active players to react to each failure.
Here's the surprising thing: it worked just fine ....
I've played a couple three player matches. We used Reactions limited to LOS and 2 Long and 2-3 failures is a Turn Over, it didn't slow things down at all for us. For Turn Overs, we played it clockwise around the table, so if 1st player rolled a Turn Over, the person to his/her left would go next, etc. Worked great for us.
Sometimes, rules in Fightin' Fungi reference other rules from other SOBH books. For example, the Tiny rule references Blast which is in Song of Deeds and Glory.
If I remove said references, i do a disservice to people wishing to use FiFu with other books.
If I leave the reference in FiFu, people will be puzzled ("where is this Blast trait that the rules mention here?)
What should I do? ("Put all the rules in a single book" is not an acceptable answer-- for many reasons, mainly...
None of the FiFu miniatures appear to need the Swarm trait (you could try to argue making a Swarm of puffball spore bombs). To be honest, although I like seeing all the Traits included in the FiFu book, if it doesn't make sense for the purposes of primarily FiFu, then it doesn't need to be included.
Poison or Terror do not work on them .Non- magical ranged attacks against Undead models are at -2,
They r startiing to look veary strong if i am useing archers or have no magic users in the group .Any chance of a fire arrow upgrade to cancle out the -2 for archers or an enchant spell to upgrade all fungis weapons in range to count as magic for one turn this would change the roll of magic users to a surport job instead of attack or defence . A spell like this could backfire and set the archers...
Something like this:
"Fire Arrow (or other name if desired)" - upgrade ranged attack (short bow, sling, shooter: long/med/short, etc., ignores Undead trait - (2 pts)
We tried this out last night, along with the Gang, Shortbow and (new) Dashing rules. All seemed to work nicely. The game was a treasure hunt pitting night goblins and a bugbear against lizardmen with a dinosaur-rider (a GW cold one rider ridden by a lance-wielding lizardman). The profile for the dinosaur-rider was Q3, C4, Mounted, Trample, Dashing, Long Move.
This gave a pretty fearsome heavy-cavalry profile, but it "felt" right. In the past, we've given the dinosaur-rider Savage,...
Thank you. I guess this is what I wanted with those rules, only question is whether the point values are too good in favor of one of the rules.
I have linked this on the main Ganesha FB page, but makes sense to put it here as well.
Comments are at the end of the post, but to summarise:
The reaction system will make playing with those Q4+ warbands even more challanging.
Low Kick ended up useful for burning a figures shield block (although I only saw the "final Armour\Shield " post here after the game was played.
The new spell list doesn't suddenly make them Gandalf. The short ranges, situational nature and (usually) low...
My kids and I played a game recently. It was a 3-way match, with a 'King of the Hill' type scenario. Here are some pics:
Some Fightin' Fungi traits we used were Spells (Lightning and Fireball), Long Reach, Heavy Armor, Heavy Weapon, and Block (5+ save). And we used Reactions. For our Reactions we limited it to only LOS (no range requirement nor unengaged/engaged with failing figure), while allowing only 1 Reaction with 1 failed die, if 2 or 3 failed Activations it was a turnover.
1) yes, but I apply a C1 free hack attack from branches etc. On a knockdown result it means the creature smashed right into a branch
Hi all, I'm glad that reactions are going to be added to SoBH!
However, I've just played my first game with reactions (btw., we used variant 2) - and I feel they need to be more restricted. I know it adds more text to the rules, but if you fail on one side of the table, something on the other side can hardly be called a reaction. In this game, we restricted the reactions to 2 long, but from my experience, I'd suggest adding following restrictions:
- reactions are limited to 2 long and LOS
I like the 1xL suggestion, gives more of a "reacting to a brief slip in the heat of battle" feel. At 2xL you are engaged but I think too far away to react to the fail. Maybe at 2xL you could restrict the action to only firing a ranged weapon and all other reactions are at 1xL?
For what it's worth I played a test game last night and we love the reaction system Although I was playing Q4 ratmen, so the reaction rule makes the Q4 and worse a real danger (even with a leader boost).
We played our first battle using the FF rules this afternoon. It was a quick, straight-up fight between goblin invaders and a band of lizardmen accompanied by a dinosaur. The table was scattered with ruins (plinths, pillars, stairways, raised walkways and a well), and also featured a largish hill down one flank and a small wood towards the other side.
The sides were as follows:
1 orc war chief (as per SOBH rulebook: Q3+, C4, Leader, Tough, plus Savage to bring him in line with...
"Opportunity activations" sounds good to me - or maybe "opportunistic activations" or just "opportunities".
I'm going to try out the high Q/lower Q think at the next opportunity, with a 400-point warband consisting of four elite elven archers and one bowmaster (all from the SOBH rosters) against beastmen and chaos warriors.
I think one thing that might balance things somewhat is that the elves won't have enough people to react to all the opportunities they get...
From my own tests, it seems that having both reactions and turnover when failing 2+ dice is a bit harsh.
Solution 1 : keep the reaction, do away with the turnover rule.
Solution 2: on a failure of 2 or 3 dice, opponent decides whether he will roll reactions OR force a turnover.
Solution 3: reactions on failures of 1 or 2 dice, turnover (and no reaction) when failing 3 dice.
Opinions? Other solutions?
I will upload a new version of the PDF next week. Sorry I have been a bit out of the loop lately because my mother had to undergo an operation, but everything is fine so I'll be playing more games this weekend.