Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 39.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • I agree that the hourglass isn't the sole problem, I just wonder how much different the picture looks without it and also the architect fortitude ability. Knowing that would better inform changes in my opinion. The narrative of UD getting "free" healing needs to be shown by someone in a point breakdown or something. It's like saying ID get a blaze for free when using Icon of Inferno. They pay points for it. There is no way a skeleton is worth 9 pts (for example) on it's statistical merits, so UD…

  • Another thing I hope was considered is how did UD lists without the Hourglass perform? Would UD have been top tier without that item? Or in other words how much is the Hourglass skewing this update of UD?

  • @Folomo What I'm hearing is that a 9 pt skeleton has no raise tax? And that skeletons which contribute very little to the success of UD start with an applied increase in points because UD did good for the last two years? I guess that's a method to use, but I don't like it. Understand, I have no problem with a reduction in power level for UD. It's how we're getting there that has me concerned.

  • Quote from Folomo: “Quote from umbranar: “Ain't the ability to be raised included in unit pricing? It's not "free" in that regard. ” Quote from Ezekiel57: “I really think this fact has to be heard by the RT. If we pay our ability to heal with CV (why not after all), we pay a vermin slave who crumbles (because no: crumbling is definitely not a good thing) called "skeleton" for 9 pts anymore. ” I suspect the reason why skeletons, cavalry, archers and NG dropped in price is due to them getting rid …

  • @Folomo Presumably Druidism will see a major change then, as they currently get stronger results for lower casting value just by getting Oaken Throne off. Doesn't seem like much of a cost for the increased spell effects. Interesting idea for our H spell. How about an Oaken Throne type arrangement?

  • I'd be curious how many Hp back is considered acceptable by RT for the trouble units. Say we only get two raises off now instead of 3 before. Is getting 4 Hp back on Shabti with buffs a big enough change compared to 6 with buffs? The suggestion of limiting to 2 Hp on large units hits the trouble units much better then the CV increase.

  • I'm in favor of a cap on raising large models. Simply add it to the list of models that can only raise two Hp a turn. It is a much simpler change and a bigger nerf to the trouble units than the increased CV. You probably wouldn't need as big of a point change if you did that either. It feels like this increased CV idea has become the default position without enough input from the UD community and that is frustrating. The whole point of special rules is to do something outside of the normal rules…

  • @Wesser To be fair I haven't played games with the new H yet, just going on my experience in the magic phase in general. There is more overlap between all the possible rolls and a failed roll if you have a higher CV target. One failed low risk roll (using enough dice according to averages) can lead to an opponent having the dice to stop your remaining spells. Fewer spells attempted seems obvious because you'll need more dice to get an average success rate. I guess you could skimp on the dice and…

  • Also, this change isn't an increase in tactical choices it's a larger load in the risk management bucket. It is going to slow the magic phase down for UD.

  • @Wesser I don't think it's fair to categorically say UD far out raised VC. I don't have the math in front of me, but I have never felt like I out raised my VC opponents. Yes, UD have an advantage in the range at which a single caster can heal, but in sheer numbers of bodies raised I'd be surprised if UD can out raise VC regularly. This change isn't just about how much raising can get done, it's also the overall effect on the magic phase. Using more dice means fewer spells attempted and cast mean…

  • Quote from Slayer Zabojcow: “Don't you think that free healing attribute with no additional cost was a little too good? Even VC if they want to heal, they just heal, no extra effects from spells there. ” VC also heal a ton more than UD and get an aura to heal and their characters can generate enough combat res on their own to overcome their units poor quality. I think the system UD have is unique and interesting, but with these changes it makes the whole magic phase potentially worse. If you nee…

  • @Nicreap @Giladis If the additional CV is a requirement then so be it, but the stated problem overall is the Raising of certain units which the additional CV only partially addresses. It's still possible to raise Shabti and Chariots at the old rate, it's just more difficult/risky. The more levels we add to a change the more complicated we make the rule, the more likely it is to be messed up. Just limiting the RES is something that is already in the book and in my opinion an easier adjustment tha…

  • Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from Palmu: “Quote from Echunia: “How did a skeleton heavy list become more viable if the hereditary stays in its current shape? To me these changes seem to shift the focus from monstrous infantry to monsters instead. Skeletons are too reliant on healing to be viable with such an expensive hereditary. Maybe the MSU necroguard list will work because their base cost got reduced for some weird reason. ” Wrote in a hurry and mistyped - The changes SUGGESTED to the Heredita…

  • Just add Large to the list of targets that max out at 2 res per magic phase. Now it's gigantic and character.

  • And this is all without seeing any CV changes to spells we use, if there are any.

  • Seems like it would have been easier to add an ensouled statue or construct clause into the H spell, since the wording had to change anyway. How many times do you think the +2 will be forgotten, since we're all used to looking at our spell cards for CV? As it is now the raising is often an afterthought for me, but now it can't be. If I had a vote it would be for a different change just effecting the statues and/or chariots.

  • The thing is scouts are taken because they perform a roll, not because they're particularly good at it. I really don't like the "it's taken a lot so increase it's points" philosophy. I think that can be an indicator, but then you need to evaluate why it's taken and if it truly is undercosted for it's performance. In my experience, scouts we're not a particularly good buy as it was. Chaff/fast cav is taken in most armies, so presumably we'll see an increase in points across other armies? If every…

  • Not sure skeleton scouts needed a points adjustment. Were they really widely taken in the data? Is it just to encourage the use of skeleton cav? Is the worst fast cav unit in the game, imop, really what we need to target with point increases? Was already looking to drop them from my list, but this cinches it. I feel like they hit the raising issue from too many angles. 5 pt heirarch, change to H spell, hourglass point increase. Was really hoping it would come with a RES increase for NG.