Search Results

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

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Col. Tartleton: “Well just as a silly nitpick I'm pretty sure there are more wild forests now than there were in the medieval era. Most of the woodlands in Europe were being managed for forestry products. Medieval woodlands look more like orchards than the woods we're used to since they've gone out of use for centuries now. Nowadays we use a lot less timber, fuel is mostly oil, gas, or coal. People live in buildings of steel frames, cement, and bricks. Ships are made from plastics and…

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Baranovich: “I also think forests should be more than soft cover. Trees aren't made of paper. Yes, granted a unit occupying a piece of woods would have some of its soldiers partially visible between the trees, I get that. But soft cover? Not so sure. And los? He** no. The trees combined with the underbrush block los 100%. Anything behind it can NOT be seen. ” Quote from DJWoodelf: “Depending on the type of forest and season and altitude and weather and daytime and..... .....you can se…

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Baranovich: “ 2014-06-treeline-summer.jpgstock-photo-tree-line-with-sky-15509110.jpg With regard to gunlines and with regard to woods and forests not blocking los in 9th Age, and those who might defend the rule...ummmm....I don't mean to belabor the point, but - can anybody on these forums see what's on the other side of these tree lines in these photos? If not, then why can you see through them in a game? The only explanation would be that in the rules it's taken LITERALLY that if a …

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Raffazza: “Logically, given the pseudo historical tech period of the game, artillery should not be more accurate than a hand held missile weapon. If a human hits someone standing in the open 16” away on a 5+, the idea that a cannon can shoot something 30” away whilst in a forest behind the rest of the army and hit it on a 4+ is absurd… ” Quote from Barbarossa_PL: “There should be more terrain giving cover, and cover should affect artillery, that's one. Catapults and cannons shooting t…

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Chip: “Could you tell me where are those threads? I couldn't find them ” there are some with which also include forests: Terrain And I quoted a longer discussion about this topic in the following posts.

  • Champions should have +1 wound

    DJWoodelf - - Command Group

    Post

    the advantage of NOT having different WS, S and I is that you can roll all attacks together with the unit if nothing special like challenges happens. +1W, +1 AT and maybe even +1LD therefore are much more practicable. You cant try to reduce dice rolls and rerolls in the game to reduce time-consuming element and on the other hand increase separate dice rolls for champions.

  • Quote from DaveRaven: “IMHO initiative does not need to be changed. What needs to be added to the rules is Melee weapons priority in Combat. A hand weapon is a range 1 weapon, a two-handed weapon is a range 2 weapon, A light lance is a range 3 weapon, a heavy lance is a range 4 weapon, and a Spear is a range 5 melee weapon. When the range between melee units is equal initiative rules apply. ” that would make initiative quite irrelevant in about 80%. And if a characteristic is irrelevant in 80% i…

  • Quote from KeyserSoze: “Truth is that regardless if we talk about wargaming, board games or RPGs, people freak out if something lasts more than 2 hours. Moreover, companies push designers a lot to reduce downtime as much as possible. There are small steps we have taken towards reducing downtime: clear rules, reduced book keeping, removed many charts, reduced rerolls and totall dice rolls, etc But that's not going to bring the game below 120 mins limit. That's a reason, IMO, the 9th age is a litt…

  • Quote from Ungrim_7: “... For me, the game feels like a "line them up and H2H until someone wins". With all the emphasis on hand to hand, list building is rather drab for me. But I don't want to get into that dead-horse beating here. I get it, people don't like gunlines, so instead of making on-table counter strategies possible, we just remove the effectiveness altogether. ... ” mmh, do I play another game?! There's so many possibilities to avoid combat or use chaff that I sometimes feel the opp…

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “5.) As warmachines now need to use BS and roll a to-hit, the -1 for forests IMO is sufficient. Hills and Impassable Terrain is enough terrain features to completely block the line of sight. ” Cannons and Catapults ignore cover modifiers, so it's not sufficient at all. ” OK, that's still kind of strange. Should be changed in a way. Most covering things wont stop a cannon ball or catapulted item but it's not that cover is NOT relevant I think yo…

  • Forest and line of sight

    DJWoodelf - - General Discussion

    Post

    this discussion arises every few month. Some points: 1.) Concerning one inch is 10m (longbow 300 range is really the maximum), a forest is about 100m. That's not really a whole forest but rather a piece of trees...being more or less dense. To really fight in a forest the whole table needs to be a forest with some ways and empty pieces. 2.) The time of year and the type of forest/vegetation highly influences the view. There are forests in which you can see 100s of meters and some where its over a…

  • could be interesting to have a thread to collect things that players think are NOT realistic in the current ruleset....with giving reasons....without the next post somebody else starting to discuss if he/she agrees or not. Not being realistic should be evaluated on its on without evaluating the same time if it's fun, fluffy, complex, balanced or whatever.

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “i looked back at every post.All of them are topic about the original topic of combat casualties. combat result was just a suggestion by the OP on how to solve it. It is merely a facet of the main topic. ------------ ... ” Giving a bonus or malus on characteristics for whatever reason is nothing to do with how to define the combat result. It's no facet but THE topic of the thread. All other topics are discussed in separate threads. It's quite easy get more and more topics …

  • Quote from Drakkar: “DJWoodelf wrote: Quote from DJWoodelf: “Quote from Drakkar: “... in practice we know the combos being used are always the same. ” totally agree...talking about the current practice.So we should talk about the future practice how to prevent that.We won't achieve that if a daemon prince pays the same price for a magical weapon that grants additional attacks than a goblin hero....or to make it obvious if a daemon prince pays the same price for a magical weapon that grants addit…

  • Quote from DJWoodelf: “I didn't follow this thread. Are there any rule ideas that I could quote in relevant threads in the suggestions forum? Just post the post# or a short summary. ” short summary @Aenarion43?!

  • Quote from Drakkar: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Quote from Drakkar: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “1. If we leave aside DH (runes) and DL (own items except for standards), we have 14 armies with each 9-10 army specific items. So that's currently 133 army specific magical items. Furthermore, we currently have 58 common magical items. So that's in total 133+58=191 magical items Assuming, we completely remove common items (not even dublicate each item in several armies), each army could have 191/14=13.6 magic…

  • Quote from Drakkar: “... in practice we know the combos being used are always the same. ” totally agree...talking about the current practice. So we should talk about the future practice how to prevent that. We won't achieve that if a daemon prince pays the same price for a magical weapon that grants additional attacks than a goblin hero....or to make it obvious if a daemon prince pays the same price for a magical weapon that grants additional attacks than a barbarian hero. Concerning ward saves …

  • Champions should have +1 wound

    DJWoodelf - - Command Group

    Post

    Quote from Astadriel: “Quote from theunwantedbeing: “We can solve the solo hero on monster issue some other way. ie. You can't challenge anything with the unit type "Monster" ” Or just make that mounts do not have to allocate all their attacks into the challenge ? (who said they have to share the honour of their masters ? They might just want to happily stomp the unit instead) ” no, the mount has to stomp on the already dead champion with every single foot.

  • Quote from Drakkar: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “1. If we leave aside DH (runes) and DL (own items except for standards), we have 14 armies with each 9-10 army specific items. So that's currently 133 army specific magical items. Furthermore, we currently have 58 common magical items. So that's in total 133+58=191 magical items Assuming, we completely remove common items (not even dublicate each item in several armies), each army could have 191/14=13.6 magical items, if we want to keep the same number…

  • Champions should have +1 wound

    DJWoodelf - - Command Group

    Post

    Quote from Lagerlof: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Quote from Lagerlof: “Giving champs +1 wound is a nerf to champions, since the opponent would get more overkill.. ” 1. Not if such a champion had access to a magical armour.2. Challenges is not always the ridden monsters stomping the champion to a piece of paper. Sometimes it's even champion versus champion.3. Champions with +1 wound easier survive a combat without a challenge when the opponent allocates attacks to the champion. ” With the current mec…