Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are more results available, please enhance your search parameters.

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.

  • @TheGodOfCakes I am afraid I can't answer to any of those questions. Book is gold, done, and it will only get price changes maybe once a year.

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Wesser: “Double Horror is match dependant. I have never seen a valid argument why a Zombie Dragon makes its worse. ” 3 flying Monsters are definitively more RPS then two Flying monsters. Even the fix targeted that exact thing, to quote patch notes written in the Army book: should be impossible to have 3 gigantic flyers.

  • Not planing it in a foreseeable future.

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Wesser: “Dude we’re on the same team here... but stop calling the Triple bat extreme, when no data in the world supports it ” I am calling it extreme RPS match dependent, not extremely strong to dominate tournaments. Data has nothing to do with it.

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Rellzed: “Sorry, but if a RPS build it's not strong you should permit it to exist. ” Depends on the level of extreme nature of the RPS build. We want lists to be more well rounded so it is skill that wins the game and winning is less match up dependent. Of course this does not mean we go to the other end of extreme, T9A still has some RPS match ups, but we are trying to curve extremes like we did in last patch with changing 3xFlying monsters for VC and Essence in Arcane Compendium. If…

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from eggsPR: “You say people don’t like to have a bad or boring game against triple flying monsters. Well, tell that to guy who sent my ZD into a dead pile and screamed in joy while doing 20 push-ups in excitement after my binding scrolls ran out... I was laughing too, so it was a FUN time! ” You are just proving our point of why this was deemed too RPS. We don't want games to be that one sided - definition of RPS. Game must be fun for both players. Quote from eggsPR: “Some EEs weighed VC …

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Just_Flo: “For an explanation which shows all aspects in minimum depth I would say 5 till 10 sentences per RT member. ” Well truth is not all have changes and not all are meaningful. It would help if next time the lockup/gold patch isn't a big one, but as small as possible after community feedback. I believed this worked great last cycle. @fjugin

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from eggsPR: “Was the expert feedback on VC being #3 clouded by thinking the tournies skies would be ruled by 3x flying monsters? 1000000% yes... ” This is not true, at least I didn't vote against this because of external balance problem, but because of RPS nature such list represents and we do not want such RPS matchups in this game. All External Experts data specifically noted that this list is not problematic from external power level, but from RPS nature of matchups.

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from VampsinMD: “From my perspective, the reason the process is being questioned ” IMO the main problem is difference of opinion where VC is in external balance. It all comes down to that, all later point changes have a root from there. I advise next time when tier list is published and community does not agree with it that you start questioning ACS, and consequently Data Team and RT, about it asap. Quote from Grouchy Badger: “I don't agree with a single point you made, because all it show…

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Grouchy Badger: “He has an opinion differing to the teams, so he'd be removed. ” Actually no, everyone has a vote and results need to be accepted. Like there is a lot of things I dislike in the last patch, but because we are a team I have to explain (sometimes even other peoples arguments) and argue for this changes, disregarding my personal opinion. This is how teamwork and compromise works. We are not in agreement even inside RT so we do not expect community to be in agreement with …

  • Wasn't worth the complexity, being too strict to background in rules design does create those (needless complexity). You can make your own story when you Sacrifice Chosen, like that gods roll a dice or something

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Grouchy Badger: “I agree with Chosen, it's really not up to you to push a play style. ” I think you guys are oversimplifying things. 1. First its overall what this game is all about. If project decided and sells 'mass ranked fantasy battles' we want more mass ranked units on the table. More then half the armies playing MSU is detrimental to the goal of this project. 2. There are army playstyles decided by the project with the help of community polls. And when books get redone Army boo…

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Chosen of Sigmar: “And no, not all of us want to play Nosferatu to have access to extra ranged spells. ” Then how come you can't understand that internally increasing point cost of Occultism, Vampire counts whole army (and player experience) benefits from this? Sure it shifts external power balance initially, but that was the goal since VC was identified as above average army. Balance is an iteration process, it can take two more major updates to be where we'd want VCs to be, both int…

  • Quote from Eisenheinrich: “@Krokz, what's your take? ” Sure, what you've said. Its an Infantry flavored army, Cavalry is there just for splash. AWSR still connects them flavor wise, rules wise it is not really intended.

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from eggsPR: “This news is still fresh, and changes can still be made based on the data presented to illustrate a judgement-based over-correction. ” By our data from 2.1, the update VC received from 2.1 to 2.2 is adequate. Are your concerns primary of armies external power level or something else?

  • There is also no need of making new units when you can just make internal balance better and units that no one played for years suddenly become viable -> you have a new unit

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Worst is not the same as nerfed the most. Best is not the same as being buffed the most. Maybe you as players think of it this way because all you see is your army and don't care about the rest. We must NOT think in that mindset if we want a good game. Our goal is that all armies are average, so if VC went from above average to average army (what I think we achieved), then from external point of view VC got a perfect update. But I would still say it did not get good update because VC still has i…

  • Patch 2.2 Feedback

    Krokz - - Vampire Covenant (VC)

    Post

    Quote from Mike newman: “I appreciate your tiering takes in a lot of data we can’t see. But that data we can see (for instance ETC results) show this not to be anywhere near the case. ” Wasn't analysis data from singles and group tournaments made public, @Just_Flo ? Quote from Mike newman: “can you clarify this statement as it certainly doesn’t appear to be true when you look at things like Cuatl, Steam Tank, etc going down in points. ” I sad "almost all", not "all". Both SA and EoS were conside…

  • The damn gods do not allow it.

  • Makhar Discussion

    Krokz - - Makhar

    Post

    Yes, that means bland.