Search Results

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

  • Quote from rolan: “Since poison means a little scratch can already cripple or kill you, while lethal strike is more like somebody hits you in such an efficient way that your armour doesn't protect you against it, how about this: Poison: each successfull to-hit-roll with a poison attack causes an additional S3 hit that wounds automatically. Lethal strike: Each to-hit-roll of '6' gains "armour piercing(6)" So strength has no meaning for poison attacks, as it shouldn't, and for lethal strike, a goo…

  • Quote from TheSpid: “.... I want to be clear that I'm fine with the X+ to wound roll, but logically, it just doesn't make sense that poison has no effect when a human attacks a human with a poisoned dagger. In my opinion the poison +X should be capped at 3+ to wound, but honestly it isn't that necessary. The re-roll to wound is NOT better. It is significantly more powerful than additional bonuses. I have already calculated some tables based on this. Let me see if I can find them for you guys whe…

  • Skirmishers and Light Troops

    DJWoodelf - - Special Rules

    Post

    Quote from Caledoriv: “Instead of getting rid of skirmishers, why not get rid of the newly introduced light troops-only units? If plague disciples, blade dancers and so on became regular skirmishers again and skirmishers had the special rule that allowed models to strike as usual in close combat without actually moving them, I think everything woud be just fine. (I mean practically the old rules; all models that can hypothetically get into base contact can strike, but the models stay in skirmish…

  • Skirmishers and Light Troops

    DJWoodelf - - Special Rules

    Post

    Quote from Caledoriv: “Giving Disrupting to light troops might actually be too good: I have particularly wild riders in mind now. But also e.g. large units of light cavalry, centaurs, war dancers or plague disciples don't really need it... ” I don't think so. Light troops should be more in between of normal formations and skirmish formations. Currently they are just too close to skirmishers and give the feeling that they are prior. They could need some buff for close combat and some nerf for sho…

  • No problem to collect ideas within the system (=change horde rule) and not within the system (=remove horde rule and introduce something else).

  • Quote from SilverFaith: “... Giving +2 to wound makes them unreasonably good against normal infantry. The difference between, say, +2 to wound, and always wounding on 4+, makes them equal against high toughness, but without making it strictly better against low toughness. Nrfing the strength is pointless, compared to just making it straight up "always wounds on x". ... ” this IMO is an important thing for designing a good poison rule. IMO, the aim of poison should be to make units that use it be…

  • Quote from jpeg: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “I think an aligning rule would not reduce the strategic part but improve it. Let's see: currently it's always the charging unit that has to align. That mean there are just two options a) charge the unit, align to it and after destroying or making it flee you overrun or pursue in that direction or you dont and do a pivot b) get rid of that unit with shooting and magic (which is not easy or doesnt really work because charging and moving is before magic and …

  • Quote from Dziedzic: “Quote from Ney: “Quote from Dziedzic: “Only thing I'm not getting is why you people do such stupid thing like freez most unbalanced version in T9A history. ” I feel quite certain that most of the pre 1.0 versions and 1.2 and to some extent 1.0 we're more imbalanced than 1.3. Internal balance in some books aren't the best, but externally I feel most books got decent options.That it's the most imbalanced version is rather laughable imho... ” Its yours opinion.The worst thing …

  • Discussion on Armor Piercing

    DJWoodelf - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “I don't think people will be impressed by characters and elf elites getting better at penetrating armour while everyone else gets worse. Would make Pharoahs and Nomarchs better though! Hate to say it, but maybe AoS has a point: why do we need to modify armour saves anyway? Light Armour: 6+ Heavy Armour, Light Armour + Shield: 5+ Plate Armour, Heavy Armour + Shield: 4+ Certain characters with defensive items/powers/spells: 3+ ...and we're done. Without 1+ and 2+ units, m…

  • 9th Age Epic Battles Modus

    DJWoodelf - - Homebrew 9th Age

    Post

    Army Restrictions Army Categories Characters - reduced to max. 25% (optionally WdG max. 30%) - the base cost of all characters who may take Magical Items is reduces to 80% [this is done because the character's protection potential is more limited; see below "Restrictions for Equipment and Magical Items"] - the available points for Magical Items is reduced to 50% Core - increased to min. 30% (optionally BH, SA, VC and WdG min. 25%) New Category "Support" - max. 25% - category includes: - (Ridden)…

  • 9th Age Epic Battles Modus

    DJWoodelf - - Homebrew 9th Age

    Post

    There is a tendency in a lot of competitive army lists to chose one or more of the following: - don't take more core than necessary - take a lot of single models, which leads to character heavy lists or monster mash or gun lines with maximizing warmachines or taking a lot of chariots incl. buff waggons - MSU armies with lots of min size units (5-10 models per unit)...in the extremum even avoidance lists - characters are upgraded to unkillable tanks with maximum AS and ward save and even rerolls …

  • Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Then the wording talisman doesnt fit IMO ” How so? I could have put the word Magical before it so they were all Magical [thing] but I didn't feel like it, plus the terms could be dropped easily enough. Enchanted Item felt too vague a term to use so that's why I didn't use that. ” because a scroll is no talisman. maybe: - magical items - magical artifacts - magical things

  • Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Following that line of thought..... We could seriously cut down on the item sections and just have the following: "could", not saying we should ust putting it out there as an option... - Magical Weapons Swords, Bows, Halberds, etc - Magical Armour Suits, Helmets, Cloaks, Shields, etc - Talismans Trinkets, Scrolls, unusual items, etc - Magical Banners Banners, etc Arcane items become a subsection like weapon types Scrolls also become a subsection like weapon types It…

  • currently a talisman is a talisman while an enchanted item could be anything else. Nevertheless, I agree that these to categories could be rebuilt. Find two or more categories with appropriate names. Each category should be more concrete like magical weapons or magical armour. The approach to have one category for items that only affect the bearer and one that affect s the whole unit could be appropriate I would even like to split arcane items into... a) scrolls (one use only) b) magical items

  • War Machines differences

    DJWoodelf - - Suggestions

    Post

    and keep in mind that now the armour save is also relevant. So trying to shoot warmachines with S3 shooting gives DH warmachines a good bonus.

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Why should somebody with a shield a) be faster like +1 to move (running with a shield is harder than doing it without)? b) have more attacks (yes you might strike with your shield but it's still an option...either attack shield or weapon...not both at the same time? Maybe spear+shield and the not (yet) existing pike should give -1 to march. ” Okay, putting it this way: Spear: Big, heavy (polearm) Halberd: Big, heavy (polearm). If anything, bulkier…

  • Quote from Vulcan: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Why should somebody with a shield a) be faster like +1 to move (running with a shield is harder than doing it without)? b) have more attacks (yes you might strike with your shield but it's still an option...either attack shield or weapon...not both at the same time? Maybe spear+shield and the not (yet) existing pike should give -1 to march. ” Bear in mind, turns in T9A are LONG; easily an hour, hour and a half. Now think about how long it would take you…

  • Quote from TheThievingMick: “My suggestion did not remove lethal strike vs. Cav from spears. Did any of you read the OP? This thread is not for debating the historical uses of weapons. Stop doing it. Talk about the proposal or take it to another thread. ” the historical use of a weapon IMO is no bad basis for discussing the abstraction of a rule for T9A. I'm personally no fan of arbitrary rules. They should to an extend be comprehensible.

  • Why should somebody with a shield a) be faster like +1 to move (running with a shield is harder than doing it without)? b) have more attacks (yes you might strike with your shield but it's still an option...either attack shield or weapon...not both at the same time? Maybe spear+shield and the not (yet) existing pike should give -1 to march.

  • The all powerful Initiative

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    There are separate threads for e.g. - mounted units - weapons - strength and amour piercing So back to the topic please.