Large red dragon mini with only 5 fire resist...

[bording]

Erhm, first of all, resist 5 = immunity?

Second of all, isn't that dragon white?

Or am I missing something really obvious...

Well, thats a black and white picture, so of course it's going to look white.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Resist 5 fire likely translates to that it ignores 5 points of fire per die.

 

[bording]

Resist 5 fire likely translates to that it ignores 5 points of fire per die.

No, that is not true, because their are no damage dice in the minis game. Resist 5 fire means just what it says, you reduce fire damage by 5 points.

 

[Jack99]

Well, thats a black and white picture, so of course it's going to look white.

Even if it was a black and white picture, a red dragon wouldn't be white per say, at least not snowflake white...

 

[IanB]

Elsewhere in that article I read the bit about 'morale' and why they decided to remove it, and I consider their reasoning paltry. It seems to show a crass misunderstanding of actual warfare and throws away dozens of years of experience about making wargames (including skirmish style wargames) work.

Bah.

Uh, do you actually play DDM competitively? Because I am pretty certain that I can speak for the majority of the skirmish community when I say that almost none of us are going to shed a single tear about morale checks going away. No rule change I can think of could possibly have a bigger impact on the variety of figures used in competitive warbands than eliminating morale checks. They're very much an anti-skill mechanic.

 

[Wormwood]

Yep. The Morale rules sucked and were easaily one of the reasons I don't bother playing DDM any more.

If I want 'historical warfare simulation', I'm not gonna be reaching for my D&D minis.

 

[Raduin711]

The large size I believe is one of the least powerful dragons. Any smaller and you are talking wyrmlings. Resist fire 5 is appropriate IMHO. Could be higher, though.

 

[Cadfan]

Elsewhere in that article I read the bit about 'morale' and why they decided to remove it, and I consider their reasoning paltry. It seems to show a crass misunderstanding of actual warfare and throws away dozens of years of experience about making wargames (including skirmish style wargames) work.

Bah.

In a skirmish style wargame, you're about as likely to have morale rules as not. And in many cases where you DO have morale rules, they're not really there to simulate morale. They're just a way of marking the point where someone needs to throw in the towel, and preventing the game from degrading into a "hunt the last darn unit" farce.

 

[Benimoto]

I don't expect to see shifting taking a move action in the actual 4E rules. I think that's a simplification for the minis game because attack and move actions are the only action types in the minis rules.

I don't see why it wouldn't take a move action in the real D&D rules. The main reason it didn't take a move action was to allow it with a full attack. Since full attacks are gone, it may as well take a move action. The only other major thing changed by changing 5-foot steps that way would be that you are no longer allowed to make a standard action + move equivalent + 5 foot step, which I think was somewhat uncommon anyways.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't see why it wouldn't take a move action in the real D&D rules. The main reason it didn't take a move action was to allow it with a full attack. Since full attacks are gone, it may as well take a move action. The only other major thing changed by changing 5-foot steps that way would be that you are no longer allowed to make a standard action + move equivalent + 5 foot step, which I think was somewhat uncommon anyways.

Exactly. I like the idea of "shifting" as a move action, because that makes it much less of a "special" move. As the minis article says, now you can shift+move in the same turn (to escape without drawing AOOs), whereas I *still* don't remember/understand all the 3e action types for five-foot steps, move-equivalent actions, withdrawals, and so on.