|
Post by Netherby on Jun 29, 2017 6:02:45 GMT
Honestly the Gun Carriage is broken assault frigate. Maybe not to the degree of the Tick, but only because infantry spam is still not that common.
|
|
wendan
Junior Strategist
Posts: 785
|
Post by wendan on Jun 29, 2017 9:54:00 GMT
You should come to my area sir! Infantry spam is pretty prevalent here
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jun 29, 2017 10:45:32 GMT
You should come to my area sir! Infantry spam is pretty prevalent here Well that's not for long.
|
|
wendan
Junior Strategist
Posts: 785
|
Post by wendan on Jun 29, 2017 11:51:33 GMT
Probably not! There is a tourney this weekend, we'll see how it goes!
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Jun 29, 2017 12:23:36 GMT
Honestly the Gun Carriage is broken assault frigate. Maybe not to the degree of the Tick, but only because infantry spam is still not that common. What?
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Jun 29, 2017 12:45:08 GMT
He means broken as cluck.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Jun 29, 2017 14:38:09 GMT
Oh it's the dogganm automatic fun police again.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Jun 29, 2017 21:03:07 GMT
Honestly the Gun Carriage is broken assault frigate. Maybe not to the degree of the Tick, but only because infantry spam is still not that common. What? I think he actually meant "The Tick" as in the superhero. The TickSo, Netherby, are you saying we shouldn't yell out "SPOON!!!" every time we activate the Fun Carriage?
|
|
|
Post by tapecrawler on Jun 30, 2017 6:29:46 GMT
|
|
wags
Junior Strategist
Posts: 102
|
Post by wags on Jun 30, 2017 6:50:59 GMT
The tick is the ret AFG
|
|
wendan
Junior Strategist
Posts: 785
|
Post by wendan on Jun 30, 2017 10:12:53 GMT
I totally thought he meant the Tick! It was starting to bug me, I couldn't figure out what stats he would even begin to have in IK.
|
|
|
Post by blindfury on Jun 30, 2017 20:46:30 GMT
As a game element I would love to play a model with the GC's rules. Unfortunately, I would rather have it for its gun than its melee potential--something about the concept and the model's design. I have a hard time with the concept of a "gun Carriage" that only has 2 inches more range than a blunderbuss. Until I can get past that inconsistency, it is not for me.
|
|
|
Post by steamwitch on Jun 30, 2017 20:52:17 GMT
As a game element I would love to play a model with the GC's rules. Unfortunately, I would rather have it for its gun than its melee potential--something about the concept and the model's design. I have a hard time with the concept of a "gun Carriage" that only has 2 inches more range than a blunderbuss. Until I can get past that inconsistency, it is not for me. Think of it as a line breaker. Most of our jacks are slow by the rest of the games standards. Another big thing is knowing how to do a Cav. Charge the GC is rolling boosted to hit rolls for impact attacks and can still use it's guns. I guess I like it from playing warhammer fantasy tomb kings and having chariots. Running it a few times it's like ducttapeing your Ulans to a destroyer. It gets alot of attention. I had a squad of mechanick around to fix her up too. Try a proxy using an old cd. It's pretty fun.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jun 30, 2017 20:59:47 GMT
As a game element I would love to play a model with the GC's rules. Unfortunately, I would rather have it for its gun than its melee potential--something about the concept and the model's design. I have a hard time with the concept of a "gun Carriage" that only has 2 inches more range than a blunderbuss. Until I can get past that inconsistency, it is not for me. I agree. Visually its a mismatch. But mechanically it's a much more elegant and superior version to the previous one. But PP really wants us to dig those horses I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by JakLemur on Jun 30, 2017 21:09:21 GMT
As a game element I would love to play a model with the GC's rules. Unfortunately, I would rather have it for its gun than its melee potential--something about the concept and the model's design. I have a hard time with the concept of a "gun Carriage" that only has 2 inches more range than a blunderbuss. Until I can get past that inconsistency, it is not for me. I agree. Visually its a mismatch. But mechanically it's a much more elegant and superior version to the previous one. But PP really wants us to dig those horses I suppose. Double agree. I really love the tank conversions people are doing but they also seem a little out of place in my army. I'm shopping around right now for a good bear model to pull it since I can suspend disbelief a little more with one of those out front.
|
|