[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.30095131 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 748x5000, Warboss Scar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.26805874 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 748x5000, 123233121.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I finally have a chance to move from 40k to Fantasy, and I've got a couple questions.

First, I've heard time and time again that the newest edition fucked cavalry up the ass, but looking at the rulebook, I'm not really seeing the reason why. I'm assuming there's some tactical implication I'm not getting because I haven't actually played anything yet. So what's the big deal with cavalry and being terrible?

Secondly, spitting in the face of that, how viable would it be read: how retarded would I be to run an entirely mounted O&G force? I don't really care if it's competitive, since it's always been a beer and pretzels game for me and, well, I'm playing O&G. But I'd still like to have a moderate chance of winning somtimes. Could I feasibly drown my enemies in wolves, spiders, boars, and bigger spiders?

>> No.26188827 [View]
File: 1.03 MB, 748x5000, Orkishbeprepared.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

inb4 ork hamlet

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]