Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 713.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • If I was supreme overlord of the world, I think I would put the standard game size to 5000. Then look carefully at giving lots of fighting infantry units a points drop. I doubt either of these will happen. They also would potentially be too big changes for the stable period that the project is aiming for. I am thinking of running a 5000pt tournament later in the year. Maybe it will catch on.

  • Quote from Aenarion43: “@Giladis, @DanT *Poke* If you don't have time to add anything, just let me know. Want to make sure with the forum update and all y'all have to do, it didn't slip through the cracks. ” Sorry, what am I being asked?

  • Quote from cakaga: “It is sad that no option for envy GD to go 50x50 large version. I have already started to make all 7 GDs at least 50x50 size big. This makes me a sad boy T.T ” If he was that big, what would there be for him to be envious of?

  • Can I just say that I'm really glad people are debating t9a fluff. For 2 reasons. (A) It shows that the project is starting to mature. (B) None of it is my fault. Keep going guys....

  • Quote from Kapten Kluns: “Thank you @IoRi78 for putting this together for us, I really appreciate it ” This And I am excited to see it being greeted with positivity too

  • Furion, interesting videos I like the length because it means I can fit them into my day easier than a 1hr blow by blow account. I would be interested to hear a little more about how and to what extent the scenario does or doesn't affect your deployment and first turn or so.

  • Lots of responses I need to actually do some work today. I will endeavour to write a response in detail (and ask further questions) later on, so feel free to comment more in the meantime (and new people should comment too). The reason I am poking this hornet's nest now is because we are starting to think about the future internally, and I want to make sure we learn lessons. But to do that I need to really drill down to a fundamental level and make sure I understand and can synthesise what is bei…

  • Quote from Happy Aspid: “Not me at least. I have started building my chaos warriors army right before 2.0 came out, so I have no nostalgia about once chosen. What i do however, is the desire to see the ones who represent Father Chaos (which is unique to 9th age) as something more than bland and uninteresting pinata for enemies to beat the living crap out. This is all. ” What does bland mean here? Is your objection that the unit isn't elite enough? Is your objection that you don't want this unit …

  • So, follow up question. How much of the ire agains forsworn, particularly from a design (as opposed to points) point of view, is because of the previous existence of once chosen, and the view that these guys are the replacement for once chosen? I.e. say once chosen had never existed. Then would people be reacting differently to forsworn?

  • Quote from Gustenpjevs: “I don't understand why forsworn w. 2 hp is a problem. Isn't it only a problem regarding footprint and nothing else? What is best: a 6 man unit with 3 hp each or a 9 man unit with 2 hp each. They have pros and cons, sure, but the difference really isn't that big, but it comes up as a thing again and again. To me, this is only a question of point cost. (Edit: and unit size) 3 hp wouldn't do much to make them more fun or viable. On the other hand, I do agree that they could…

  • Sylvan Elves 2.04 Update Preview.

    DanT - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Hahaha. Yes, how unfortunate. This is why one should never make flippant comments on the forum, they will always turn round and bite in the backside

  • Quote from Altao: “So according to your earlier words (about mandatory shields) weapon options are basically neglible. Also that very powerful rule requires your unit to lose combat to make it useful - and that IIRC was one of reasons for Break Test reroll removal.Just a unit with subpar stats* & subpar rule. *Below Large Infantry average ” Half of all units should be below par, right? I stand by my statement that at a different points cost I see tactical uses for these guys, and I think I would…

  • Quote from Spacegoblin: “@DanT (I'm just responding to the bits I don't consider to be about pricing) I think the issue with Irredeemable and Exiled units is a matter of both design and cost. Design in the sense that I personally think they are too bland, are a missed opportunity to inject more flavour into the book I actually don't find them bland. I have a very specific criticism of forsworn, which is that I think shields are mandatory, because they are an anvil unit with poor DS. I also perso…

  • @Spacegoblin My understanding of the majority of your post is that it is actually about points. Drawbacks are fine if they are pointed appropriately. What are the things that you think can't be fixed by points? (Assuming that forsworn, forsaken etc get dropped to a price you find acceptable)

  • Even that is not so clear cut, depending on the form the buffing takes. Every time we redesign something because feedback has arrived at us that it is basically never used, someone comes out of the woodwork to say it was their favourite thing and why did we ruin it. But yes, broadly I agree with you. And you should know that by now. As well as knowing that there are caveats to this.

  • @Serwyn @Clef I actually think we did a lot of good for the SE book in 204. Other opinions are available. Whenever we change anything, it will screw over someone, so we are always trying to guess if we are doing more good than harm. I am genuinely sorry that we've messed up your list(s). I can only hope that overall it is worth it.

  • Quote from Clef: “@DanT: When you play a list in which 70% of your choices got more expensive, then it certainly feels like rules guys target SE specifically, yes. And I didn't even use any unit choices abusively. See my thread. Sucks, to be honest... Then you may be looking for alternatives and see that most other choices got nerfed too. Do you really expect us to be happy about the things happening to the army, mostly without proper reasoning? Looking at months of frozen rules, while there sti…

  • Rules Team (RT), of which I am one. Normally pricing is the domain of BLT only, RT task them with deciding all of the prices, and mostly we leave them to it to a large extent. This was an emergency RT initiative. I believe that the 2 RT members who are also on BLT informally sought the opinion of BLT members, and there was general agreement and no objections. But ultimately this was an RT initiative and RT decision. RT interventions on pricing like this are rare. And maybe this one will turn out…

  • Sylvan Elves 2.04 Update Preview.

    DanT - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Quote from Serwyn: “Yeah, changing an error, a typo, or even some inspired rule interaction is fine, because they weren't supposed to be in the release in the first place. Here it's nothing but a balance change, it's different. No, I certainly don't think you're targeting SE, obviously. But in the end you still give a sudden unexpected nerf to a unit. You didn't do that to buff an underpowered entry. ” Actually, we did buff something in the "emergency patch" (my words, no-one else has eve called…

  • Sylvan Elves 2.04 Update Preview.

    DanT - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Quote from Serwyn: “The problem is that it was said "no change until autumn, no change until autumn", but when it's about nerfing SE, no need to respect that. That was pretty obvious it wouldn't be welcomed. ” We had an emergency chat about this and a couple of other things. There was a HBE issue that hadn't been spotted, as well as some unforeseen consequences of changing wording and a few other bits. We felt these issues were big enough to be worth doing these 3-4 changes 2 weeks after the ini…