Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 140.

  • I also think that alternate activation for units will slow the game. But I like the idea of alternate phases. It needs to revise some rules and rethink the close combat (because we would have the exactly same phase two times). But it could be a good compromise between I go you go and alternate units system.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Yerp. Actually, that gives me an idea. Crazy idea. ” I have a very crazy idea Maybe the main problem is the X+, whatever it is. The Characteristics are "low=bad, high=good". It works easily when you roll under it (like a Characteristic test). But it's more complicated with a X+ roll (like the old BS: 3=4+, 5=2+ for example). A solution could be to have only X- rolls. In this case, you don't have some rolls which are X+ and some others whixh are X-. Everything works the …

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “2d6+Discipline vs. a target number would be the simplest way to change it. ” But you add a step (the sum) and the target number is not intuitive. It's the same as the '7' of the Armour Save. It does'nt represent anything. Quote from WhammeWhamme: “(To keep things exactly the same, the target number would be 14)(And an advantage would be that you could vary the target number! "Make a difficulty 12 Discipline Test" f'rex) ” Now, it's the same as 'take a Displine Test with…

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Rolling a 6 and feeling bad about it is dissonant. ” We've play Discipline tests (and Command tests for Battle) like that without feeling bad. There is no truth for one or another solution. It's just a choice. Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Discipline and Miscasts should probably also be changed to roll low bad roll high good. ” How would you do that easily ? For the Discipline, you have the value and roll under it. It couldn't be more simple. If you want to have a X+, you m…

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from kisanis: “I see no reason to then make Aegis/Regen saves all X- to match the same line of logic. ” Aegis and Regeneration are saves too. It's a good reason for them to works like the Armour saves. Having one type of saves of X+ and others types of X- is not very consistent.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Characteristic - Characteristic = X+ roll ” Armour Saves are not really like it. It's: 7 - Characteristics + Characteristics It's not very intuitive. Why using a '7' or a table where a X- roll do the same job more easily? Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Since Armour and Armour Piercing are both Characteristics, we get an X+ roll. ” We always have X+ roll for Armour Saves.

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Also, Aegis and Regen still work the old (inuitive) way no? ” No. They are saves too and must work like armour saves.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from theunwantedbeing: “To-hit? Characteristic One - Characteristic Two = N Consult the chart to see what X+ you need to roll based on that N To-wound? Characteristic One - Characteristic Two = N Consult the chart to see what X+ you need to roll based on that N To-save? Characteristic One - Characteristic Two = N Roll N- As you can see, the third one breaks the common rule previously established by the to-hit and to-wound rolls. ” The two first rolls are "attack rolls", the third is a "def…

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Needing to roll lower to pass feels wrong, since characteristic tests are so rare in most instances, the only common one is a Leadership/Discipline test and that's not part of the rolling for damage part of the game. - Rolling to hit Offensive vs Defensive Higher Roll = Better - Rolling to wound Strength vs Defence Higher Roll = Better - Rolling to Save Armour vs Armour Piercing Higher Roll = Better - Special Saves Higher roll = Better It would be weird to have Roll…

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from DJWoodelf: “So of course the proposal Arm - AP = X- would be the easiest solution. ” And Special saves must work the same to be coherent (without AP of course). They are saves too.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    You perfectly understand the proposal @piteglio Quote from piteglio: “i don't see any drawbacks to this, except the fact that old players will have to change their habits. ” This is the only and main difficulty for this rule (and I'm an old player too). But I think it's better for everything else.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Nekhro - - General Discussion

    Post

    I've made this proposal for ARM. They keep the idea to change the value in the characteristics profiles but not the result to succeed a save roll. So it's now as complicated as before because you always have the calculation with the "7 from nowhere". My proposal simplifies and works for all the save rolls (armor, aegis and regeneration).

  • Traduction - Signaler des erreurs

    Nekhro - - France

    Post

    Livres des Hardes Bestiales, p.9. La taille des deux chars est «Large» qui est le terme anglais. C'est à changer par «Grande» pour la VF (ce qui est bien le cas des autres chars).

  • Quote from JimMorr: “Another subject: name one reason other than 'heritage' why armour and ward save are not regular characteristic test? Or ,reversing question, why testing Str3 we roll 3- rather than 4+? ” I try to write a proposal in the right subject.

  • what rules have been over engineered, which could be simplify? Saves (armour and special) can be simplified. Current problems Quote from Rulebook: “For example, a model with Armour 3 will succeed with their Armour Save Roll on a roll of 4+ (7 - 3 (Armour)). the model gains this ” Quote from Rulebook: “as a modifier to all its Aegis save rolls, and if the model doesn’t have a Aegis Save, it gains Aegis ((7-X)+) instead. ” The mecanism works but it’s not easy to use. You have useless calculations …

  • Je pense que c'est dans la définition des Attaques à distance (p.62) : Quote: “Toutes les attaques qui ne sont pas des Attaques de mêlée sont des Attaques à distance. ”

  • Quote from Kisscool: “C'est triste pour l'utilité de la RM ” Je n'ai jamais aimé cette mécanique de Résistance à la magie (qui finalement ne résiste pas tout à fait à la magie, et pas à toutes les magie). J'avais fait une autre proposition, mais elle n'a pas été retenu (même en partie). Je la recyclerai ailleurs

  • Quote from Ghiznuk: “En gros ça veut dire que le sort passe toujours automatiquement mais il est plus facile à dissiper ? ” Ça semble bien être ça.

  • Quote from garag: “Est ce que c'est prévu de structurer la section 9e age du warfo ” Ça devrait arriver sous peu. On discute entre membres de l'équipe du Warfo sur le comment, etc. Je ferai le retour aux membres de l'équipe du 9e Âge et une fois que tout sera calé, ce sera changé.

  • Quote from Warboss_R'ok: “A radical suggestion for armour saves: You have to roll <= your armour value, 6 is always a failure. A model starts with armour 0. Shield adds +1, light armour another +1, etc to your armour value. AP(X) gives -X to your armour value for that save. So, for example, a model with plate armour(+3) and shield(+1) has armour 4. An AP(2) attack reduces it to armour 2, so you save on a 1 or a 2 (which you could call a 2- save if you want to) ” I talk about the same solution on…