Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 850.

  • Quote from Giladis: “We are currently in the final phase of writing the BRB and Magic Paths. These documents have entered internal playtesting. We have very recently started the task of updating 14 AB into the format for the new rules and working on the coming additions for each army as well as trying to fix some glaring issues with a select number of entries in each AB. We expect this work to last several months. When we are sufficiently satisfied with the work all the documents BRB, MP and ABs…

  • b_1_q_0_p_0.jpg

  • Quote from Math-CD: “I totally understand and appreciate that you take the time to do an amazing job! However I think I am not the only one who would highly appreciate an approximate timeline. You have probably set internally some dates / deadlines. Maybe you could communicate smtg like : Nov 17 : rulespack v2 Dec 17 ... ” You already asked for a aproximate timeline and I just give you one. Nov 17 is not aproximate it's specific. You won't get anything specific as there is no specific date inter…

  • Re: Game size survey

    Drakkar - - General Discussion

    Post

    The survey should had two parts : one for tournament games and one for casual.

  • Des infos sur l'ETC 2017

    Drakkar - - Général

    Post

    Les recaps ETC que j'ai fais dans les forums WDG, DH et OK. (Hidden Content)

  • Quote from Bozgum: “Quote from Drakkar: “Playtesting i hope this summer and official release around this autumn or early winter.It's just a guessing from what have been said here and here, nothing official yet. ” ...maybe we could have an overview of the completed tasks and WIP? ..at least it reduces the pain of waiting and the chances of players abandonning T9A... (I'm tired convincing my group to stay because "soon" we will get the 2.0 rules..If I remember correctly it was due summer 2017...) …

  • Quote from berti: “Rather than wait for the final books in a 2 year span and adjust every few month because of unbalanced results. ” I just said afaik that balancing won't happen to the 14 armies not specifically redesigned right now. Maybe there is going to be a 2.1 hotfix in January that is going to balance AP in the new meta, i don't know. What i do know is that other than lack of time and ressources, afaik again there is also the fact the meta is going to change a lot in 2.0. So if they star…

  • Quote from berti: “Sad decision. ” As a reminder last year they planned to release 8 full books redesigns in 2017. But when you have limited manpower that only works on their free time for no money, you are extremely limited. So that's the reality that is sad, not the decision to delay X or Y.

  • Quote from Math-CD: “Quote from Kathal: “Quote from Math-CD: “has any approx. date for the release been communicated yet? I struggeled to find the information anywhere. ” No, since we have no idea how long it will take, till we are can release it (lots of stuff to do).From my phone ” at least a large prognostic? 2017 or later ? It would help tournament organisators like me to know in which version will the tournament be played. ” Playtesting i hope this summer and official release around this au…

  • Quote from berti: “I realy hope the split will mean St. 4 in profile doesn´t automatically mean AP 1 in addition in profile. St. 5 means AP2 etc. Out of the examples I would get this impression. ” AFAIK only the redesigned books benefit from the splits (Movement, WS, S/AP) : so the new full books WDG & DL, and the updated DE & ID. In other books the actual stats will only be translated in to the new stats, no rebalancing.

  • Quote from Diablo_DF: “Quote from Drakkar: “Complexity in your army list and on the table, but not really in the rules mechanics. Remove complexity in the rules mechanics and you get AoS. ” Can we stop AoS somparisons already? There is tons of clutter in the game that doesn't add anything worthwile to it's depth. Thinking about streamlining/simplification does not make this game AoS. ” I agree, you would have to do a lot of rule removal to make this game like AoS. Anyway i used to badmouth AoS e…

  • Quote from Mahlzeit: “Quote from Drakkar: “Quote from Diablo_DF: “Quote from Mahlzeit: “the overall goal of removing complexity seems to have failed ” I fear there never has been an overall goal to reduce complexity. ” Complexity in your army list and on the table, but not really in the rules mechanics. Remove complexity in the rules mechanics and you get AoS. ” Why add unnecessary complexity to the rules mechanic, then? The system right now is already complex without two WS and Movement stats. …

  • Quote from Diablo_DF: “Quote from Mahlzeit: “the overall goal of removing complexity seems to have failed ” I fear there never has been an overall goal to reduce complexity. ” Complexity in your army list and on the table, but not really in the rules mechanics. Remove complexity in the rules mechanics and you get AoS. Quote from Frar: “it would be better if the cost in point is align with the units size as i stated before. ” Problem is you lack space if you do that and have to use little charact…

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Looks good. Please replace a "7++" ward by a "-", since 7++ makes it look as if it's a rollable result. ” Agree, it was just to show how it would appear when the model(s) have a ward save.

  • Because of what @Shlagrabak said. On multipart models you have several offensive statlines, for example a Steed of Lust with Poison Attack i agree with him it's better to put that rule on the same line as the stats of the Mount than to write Steed of Lust (Poison Attack) or Poison Attack (Steed of Lust) and mix this rule with the rules of the rider(s).

  • Quote from Kallstrom: “From a game designer's point of view I have to say that I agree with most of the changes you made, Drakkar. Thumbs up! The only thing I would change is to merge the Awsr section with the unit specific rules. If a new player is looking for what rules that affect this model he/she now has two rows/places to look at (even though they are close in proximity to each other) to find the answer. Maybe all special rules and army wide rules could be in the same box/on the same line,…

  • Regarding the layout : B5Iyfm.png Here's a modified version i proposed internally : 1500369836-mod.jpg What i changed and the reasons why : (Hidden Content) If you have suggestions it's now or never.

  • If you want to fix congas you have to fix side way congas as well.

  • Quote from Lagerlof: “It would help if a unit can only reform in such a way that it adds or substracts 2 ranks (and maybe width aswell?) to the current formation. Would atleast stop units from going completely nuts in the movement phase, going from 1 ranks to 5 etc. ” Going "nuts" should always be possible as long as you pass a LD test for example. If you fail you do a limited reform.

  • IIRC one of the reasons why similar propositions were rejected is they don't want to forbid a small unit to form a single rank of 10 models when being charged by a max sized horde.