Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 541.

  • Whetorld

  • Quote from Smythen: “but they can't breal steadfast on a flank attack and that is just wrong. they should hBe +1 rank if flanking long as they have one full rank. that way 15 strong could count as +3. ” They can if they have 2 full ranks. That seems about right. Theo

  • Why would the inhabitants of any world call it anything but "the world" or something banal like "earth"? Theo

  • Quote from DaveRaven: “Quote from Twilight Wolf: “I think Heavy Cavalry should on the charge take away steadfast rank on the charge due to psychological effect. But it should be on depending on the unit size of Cavalry Unit it drops below 5 it no longer get effects it becomes combat ineffective so to speak. ” I think as long as the heavy Cav still has ranks it should eliminate the infantry steadfast. ” The reasons for why cavalry currently don't break steadfast easily aren't oversights. It's bec…

  • Quote from slivek: “When you are writing that we overprice Core to make Elite playable do you realize that with that logic you could say that we overprice one elite to make other playable? It is same thing. ” No it's not. Let me rephrase the question at hand: Do some core units cost more than they would if they were in special? Theo

  • Quote from tiny: “Quote from Theorox: “Not if they do things the core unit of the same book can't. ” And than we are back at this point raised previously:Quote from tiny: “...some armies have so many unites with similar weapons and naturally overlapping roles, that you need the mechanic of core/none-core to separate them. ” ” Quote from Giladis: “Quote from Theorox: “Not if they do things the core unit of the same book can't. ” You also have to take into consideration that not all roles are to b…

  • Quote from tiny: “And the BLT will reply that if you point core in a way that "building a competitive army mostly out of core simply" it will push many current elite units out of the game. ” Not if they do things the core unit of the same book can't. Theo

  • The base problem, going beyond core tax, must surely be this: 1) X points of elite units are better than the same number of points of horde-type units in the game, core tax or no core tax. They concentrate force better, they are usually equipped to deal with tougher foes better, they don't lose combat as often so they don't risk breaking, they have smaller footprints, etc etc. 2) Instead of giving players an incentive to play other units which might compensate the innate advantages of units that…

  • Quote from rolan: “Page 62 of RB states that champions are considered non-rank-and-file models, so if there are less than 5 R+F models left, I can apply hits to the champion, killing him before the unit is wiped out. ” You've got it backwards, it says champions are rank and file models. When shooting at a unit, the champion dies last. Theo

  • Quote from tiny: “Regarding the OT, here the response of one of the BLT members: Quote from Frederick: “i stated this several times before: a general core-tax is a myth! we at no point during game-design and balancing slapped a flat %-tax on core to overcome the positive effet of being a core unit. This is all a case-by-case based pricing we did based on the context of the army and to make sure Eilte-equivalents will be taken still (without this effect nobody would ever bring chosen in the WDG-b…

  • Nah, not an issue. If anything, LD tests should be a bit easier to fail so that people are less likely to put all their eggs in one basket. In return, perhaps some cause of panic tests could be removed. Enemies breaking from combat within 6" causing panic always kind of sucked. Theo

  • Quote from rolan: “It is not that easy to sniper, as long as the unit is 10 or more, it is some work to try and shoot the champion. And that would be the intention: no more 5-model units that hide somewhere behind and dart forward to try and catch the objective. Scoring units would become bigger, so the scoring-dart problem would most likely disappear. Or it would be more expensive (bigger units hiding), or more risky (small units that loose scoring to light shooting). Winning the secondary obje…

  • Quote from rolan: “I'd solve the problem with including leaders in the scoring rule: Units with at least one model with the Scoring special rule are considered Scoring Units and are used for capturing Secondary Objectives. A unit only counts as scoring if it either contains a champion or if a character model is joined to the unit. Characters with the "not a leader" special rule don't count for scoring. That way, you can work against enemy scoring units (kill the champion), those minimum size sco…

  • Quote from Sodder: “But 20 dwarf warriors would cost 260 points - 20 goblins costs only 120. Should we then raise the minimum seize of goblins as well or wouldn't goblins then just become the new cheap, chaffy scoring? ” Goblins are supposed to be chaff, Clansmen aren't. Additionally, 20 goblins aren't a very attractive option for scoring only. In part because a minimum sized unit like that actually has other uses. That's a good thing. If you're running goblins in small units you're usually eith…

  • With core infantry being generally abhorred by most factions and the trend shifting towards MSU, we've started seeing more and more min-sized units that are taken primarily to fill core and be used as scoring units, with their secondary use being employed as emergency chaff. They are typically made up of small units of non-elite infantry or cavalry too small to be of any real use in combat. If core units are being used for this purpose, I think something has gone a bit wrong. I suggest either re…

  • And by the way, let's not forget that Greybeards are the rare exception, not the rule. Normally the situation is reversed, in that core infantry isn't worth taking when you can get special infantry instead. The whole Greybeards debate sprang from somebody putting them up as an example of why eliminating core tax could have an adverse effect in a situation where core choices are already considered the superior option. This is a rare thing, so while it's an interesting debate conclusions drawn fro…

  • Quote from Sir_Joker: “@Squirrelloid - we actually want to force people to take a min % out of certain units. Core is a very background driven section after all - ofc people would take kings guard if they need maximum combat power (more so if it is more point efficient), but we want armies that are "realistic" in the light of the T9A background for this race We actively do not want armies consisting only out of war machines and copters for instance - we want armies that have a minimum amount of …

  • Quote from berti: “Kings guard see nearly NO play. And they cost about the same as greybeards with GW. And they are better, no question to this. Better armor, 2 attacks, possibility to become stubborn... ” People don't feel like the extra points spent on better CC abilities is worth it. That tells us there's a bigger design problem here. If DH core is so good in CC that it makes the special CC units obsolete despite the special units being markedly better for nearly the same cost, something has …

  • Quote from Sir_Joker: “Please don't focus on specific units, they are only to illustrate the general problem I want to make you aware of - nothing more ” And I was addressing that problem; special units in general should have abilites that core units don't, and that should be the motivation behind taking them. Theo

  • Quote from Sir_Joker: “You see what the problem is we are running into in the above comments: to solve the issue we need to either nerf the elite unit taking away what makes them special which in case waters down the line between the former "elite core unit" and the other core units: Nerfing greybeards will put them further away from the elite unit so for the price to put them closer to the regular warriors - therefore it is only moving the problem, not solving it. [---] ” No you don't. The diff…