Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 445.

  • Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Quote from Theorox: “Two units being allowes to trade places in CC by reforming really sucks. Theo ” You need 3 or more units to trade places exactly. ” Haha, not sure that makes it better actually. Theo

  • Two units being allowed to essentially trade places in CC by reforming really sucks. Units "hopping around" really doesn't make any logical sense. Theo

  • I think these discussions and misunderstandings (even OB360's video which shows that even people who think they understand the combat reform rules get them wrong easily) show a real weak spot in the rules. Maybe combat reforms need a serious overhaul. Preferably one that simplifies what you can and cannot do, tells you why, and is internally consistent. Why can't models with longer bases turn to face? Why can you combat reform to put more models in base contact, but not to reduce the number? Sur…

  • Two monsters stuck in combat, however, can zip their way sideways across the board during the course of a game just by combat reforming. Theo

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “Same reason a horde unit that get's charged by another horde unit can't build more ranks. Removing models from the combat is very abusive. I see your point @Theorox, but it would be a huge buff to monsters and chariots if they were allowed to just turn. ” Fair. I don't agree, but I see your point as well. Theo

  • Quote from nicreap: “Quote from Theorox: “A block of 50 infantry fighting in formation (a horde, for example) get to turn around when charged in the flank, but one single monster who doesn't have any formation to take into account shouldn't? That's ridiculous. It's not a question of balance, it's a question of verisimilitude. ” and I find it ridiculous that if you manage to outplay your opponent, he can just undo what you did, because his front is narrower than his flank. If you want monsters to…

  • Quote from nicreap: “what should it be able to negate being out played? They already mulchinfantry. If an infantry unit flanks a monster, why should it be allowed to reduce the attacks coming at it after being out played? Such a rules change will make it nearly impossible to deal with monsters via infantry. ” Again, what? Not allowing the monster to turn around makes zero logical sense. A block of 50 infantry fighting in formation (a horde, for example) get to turn around when charged in the fla…

  • Quote from nicreap: “but why would you reward a monster for getting flanked? ” What? Why would a monster not be able to just turn around? Theo

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “Same reason a 50x100 monster that is flanked can't combat reform and turn to they are in his front (versus a wide enough unit of course) ” Never considered that before. That is dumb as hell. In my opinion, you should be allowed to reform into a narrower formation, even if it takes models out of combat. You should always have to form at least one full rank if you have enough models, so you couldn't reform into conga lines. The reform and formation rules are a mess. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from nicreap: “Quote from TheThievingMick: “Screw that. High T models pay for it. It's bad enough that T and Armor get negated with the same stat--no point devaluing it further. Suck it up, elves. ” Why should your toughness have any bearing on how magical fire impacts you? ” See: Fireballs. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from sixfthoneybadger: “Quote from KeyserSoze: “Quote from kgkid: “Then again, Toughness is calculated in the price of the model, so perhaps, I am wrong, and it is balance after all. ” "but we're T3", usual elven argument ” That's such a lame deflection from the problem. Don't have an answer smear the commenter. Be better than that. ” You're right, this is not the place for obvious jokes! Be better than that! Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from HJFudge: “Stability IS a good reason to be light on change. People complain about too much change, never knowing what models will be invalidated, etc. So its a great thing that we are sensitive to that and act accordingly. Yay us. But sometimes, its not a good enough reason. Magic, currently, as a system, is not doing its job. Its not a good system. Mostly because its a hold-over system from That Other Game. This is our game. Us. We get to decide. Why are we sticking with this really …

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Gutting the magic paths (further) and reducing them to 3-4 spells that you buy or select would be a catastrophe. The last nail in the coffin of the magic system. In my opinion, the approach that T9A took when overhauling magic wasn't a very smart one, in that they tried to make each magic path focus on one or two specific things. It sounds good in theory, but it for each path to do 1 or 2 things the spells have to be pretty same-y. People like @Mirdhynn who want magic to fill a specific niche in…

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Archeron: “Magic is , if someone plays it, boring. Atm it is only a point hole. All your points you invested are away and doing like nothing. ” That's hyperbole. Both games I've played so far of 1.3 were hugely influenced by magic. Try taking no magic against my +3 to cast Shamanism list and I'll see you in CC. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    GW devs mostly had no idea what was even good and bad for the points, or that was always my impression. A lot of the time new models were overpowered and people cried foul, but sometimes they were terrible as well. The people who made Warhammer just weren't good at playing or understanding it mechanically, and didn't care to be. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Scottish Knight: “If it comes down to the feeling of shared magical traditions being the issue, would it help if we fleshed out more the individual takes on the paths? We have given some thought as to how each faction would view magic - it's something we will be fleshing out in the individual Army Books. ” Not really, since it won't fundamentally change the experience of using said spells in-game. Even army wide signature spells, traits or attributes which has been suggested would jus…

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from the shadow goat: “Quote from Theorox: “That's just my subjective opinion, but it's definitely true. ” That made me laugh ” What can I say, I'm usually right. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Calisson: “T9A immersion has now translated in magic. ” I definitely disagree with this statement. I would go as far as to say that having the magic paths all being shared by multiple armies kills the immersion experienced from magic almost completely. That's just my subjective opinion, but it's definitely true. T9A magic so far feels completely mechanical and sterile, and not really immersive at all. If we translate this to the "symmetrical vs asymmetrical" debate, magic now is defin…

  • Conga again

    Theorox - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from kgkid: “It would empower strong CC units far more than weak ones, obviously why. It would open doors to clipping (in multiple charges), where even units on the very corners would get full set of attacks, which is not the case now. ” Yeah, that pretty much disqualifies that idea, unfortunately. Theo

  • Let's talk about 1.3

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    I like all information (or at least a list or table of available outcomes, like Warhammer's mysterious terrain) to be known to both parties in advance, but I like randomness in how things behave in the actual game. Units and terrain with random abilities is fun, a game of dice will never really be "fair" anyway, so I don't think reducing randomness should be seen as a holy grail of game design. There's plenty of scope in the game, the rules and (I hope) the world of T9A for randomness that will …