Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 461.

  • Monsters pivoting freely makes sense. Chariots pivoting does not. Monsters not being allowed to turn to face an enemy in their flank because it takes models out of contact due to their rectangular base is dumb as hell. Theo

  • There is no room in the rules to make Steadfast any weaker than it is right now. Being disrupted when flanked is plenty, and in combination with not allowing to take models out of contact on a combat reform a flanked infantry block is screwed. Front to front, infantry should be as tough to move as they currently are. That's what infantry is for. Theo

  • How about removing sweeping attacks altogether? They're either weaksauce or ridiculous, and almost impossible to implement in a way that's both balanced and fun for both players. They will always either be autohits or CC attacks that work without the target getting a chance to strike back. That kind of thing works for Mad Gits because they're so random and die to a stiff breeze. For entire units that either fly or are light troops with high movement and several wounds being able to attack withou…

  • Just looked through the KoE army book, and the number of special rules for some units is staggering! To be honest, is there a point to Oath of Fealty and Serfs at all? They're kind of cute thematically, but why should peasants march 2" extra just because? Jousting also seems like a completely unnecessary rule. A slight complication for no real improvement. Letting the player choose between different effects from The Blessing is another rule in the same vein. Reverting it back to 5+ Ward against …

  • Magic Paths: A Review

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Klexe: “Quote from Adam: “Quote from Klexe: “Low number of models on the table with almost no way to clear chaff is quite annyoing. ” Well you have dirt cheap archers with longbows. Also most KoE lists nowadays seem to bring around 120+ models so I wouldn't really call that low number of models either. ” That is called peasant spam and should be gone next patch. ” No, it's called taking a balanced army made up of both knights and peasants. If you don't want to do that, don't complain …

  • To wound modifiers instead of strength bonuses suck. They're good the way they are, but could use an Initiative buff on the charge. Surely a flat +1 or +2 is enough? A weapon making you automatically strike first or giving +1 to hit or wound rolls is a mistake. Modifying characteristics is a better way of going about it. Theo

  • Magic Paths: A Review

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Alexwellace: “I really think we should have at least 1 faction specific trait/signature spell for each army. It's not a huge amount more spells, but it would help combat the generic nature of our current system. A lot of armies already have it! Treesinging, Totums, Raise Dead, Drain Magic, Gauntlet of power, why not systemize it and give it to everyone??? ” Quote from Teowulff: “Perhaps introduce some middle way between generic paths and army specifics by introducing army specific bou…

  • +1 Initiative for charging +2 Initiative for charging with a lance or light lance +1 Initiative for carrying a spear, instead of Armour Piercing And probably remove the Initiative bonus paired weapons give you. That never made sense, and neither did AP on spears. Helping you to strike first does, though. I think this would fix a lot of issues. Chargers don't automatically strike first, but if two units of equal Initiative square off the chargers get the edge. Cavalry get to do their job against …

  • Magic Paths: A Review

    Theorox - - General Discussion

    Post

    Magic is in a very bad place at the moment. The redesign from the Warhammer copycat paths may have been necessary, but it wasn't executed well at all in my opinion. Removing army specific Paths and trying to make a pool of common ones fit all armies was the fundamental mistake. I really don't think it can be done in a good way. Moreover, most of the current paths are still just as similar to GW's work as the old Paths were! Was "this game can't be too much like Warhammer" ever a legitimate expla…

  • Chariots

    Theorox - - Troop Types

    Post

    Quote from Altao: “Quote from Theorox: “Quote from DJWoodelf: “Chariots could be allowed to march but the base movement should be reduced by 2 compared to the mounts normal movement E.g. Horse chariots M6 Wolf chariots M7 Boar chariots M5 Furthermore, chariots should be forced to do 1-2 dangerous terrain tests even in open terrain if they do a different movement than normal move AND do a wheel during that movement. ” This would make chariots useless. Long charges and impact hits are the only thi…

  • Chariots

    Theorox - - Troop Types

    Post

    Quote from DJWoodelf: “Chariots could be allowed to march but the base movement should be reduced by 2 compared to the mounts normal movement E.g. Horse chariots M6 Wolf chariots M7 Boar chariots M5 Furthermore, chariots should be forced to do 1-2 dangerous terrain tests even in open terrain if they do a different movement than normal move AND do a wheel during that movement. ” This would make chariots useless. Long charges and impact hits are the only things most of them have going for them. Th…

  • Chariots

    Theorox - - Troop Types

    Post

    Quote from Odoamar: “I little refresh this thread and share my suggestions: 1. First i think we can split Chariots to two troop type categories: - Chariots - like now, change Impact Hits for Scythes rule. - War Platforms - create new troop type category: Combined Profile, Models to Form Full Rank = 1 ( like Monsters ), no impact hits, no swiftstride, can march, large height, War Platform rules about joining to unit. Cadaver Wagon, DE Divine Altar, EoS Altar of Battle, EoS Arcane Engine shouldnt …

  • Quote from Morgan_Treeman: “The games workshop warboss on wyvern mini has a 50x50 base. ” Mine came with a chariot base. Bought it around the time it came out in Finecast. It always looked really stupid on a 50x50, too. Theo

  • Did you see that ludicrous display last night?

  • Charge and initiative

    Theorox - - Close Combat Phase

    Post

    Quote from Klexe: “For flanking and rear charging there should be only -1 to hit for the enemy imo. Every living beeing is worse fighting to the side or back then to the front ” The actual soldiers who are figting to their formation's flank turn to face the enemy to attack them and defend themselves, obviously. Theo

  • Charge and initiative

    Theorox - - Close Combat Phase

    Post

    +1 I for charging +2 I if charging with a lance/light lance The super duper speedy elf guys can still strike before or simo with a lot of cavalry, but in general charging cav will strike first and other chargers will have the edge against comparable units. Theo

  • 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