Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are more results available, please enhance your search parameters.

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Quote from Aegon: “ I don't think that anyone in the responsible team would ever consider using an idea from this open forum, wether that idea is good or not doesn't matter. Maybe this is the reason for my harsh post, so sry about that . ” They do get considered. Seriously. Bits and pieces in the end, but usually only the best ideas even get mentioned - and there's usually about ten good ideas from the community for every problem, so any given solution IS unlikely to be implemented. But it does …

  • Quote from Aegon: “@WhammeWhamme: I think you exaggerate a bit . I agree that pure wishlisting isn't very productive. But that isn't the case here, not even close. On the other hand your "moderate and reasonable" approach can lead to blandness or uselessness as well. But the ideas from the RT/BLT are never flawed, right? If there is a problem it is based on either the inability of the playerbase to conceive the design; or the GW origin. Just take a look at the pick-rate of our Special Equipment …

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “If you want to actually see it? Try to pitch ideas that could see print as-is. I mean it's fine to have some wild spitballing - but if you actually want to see it implemented? It needs to be moderate, reasonable, and have the seal of "has community backing". (and even then, it can be shot down; there are a LOT of ways for something to get killed in development) ” that's impossible for a full army book redoo! Its ok for these minor beta tweaks. wh…

  • Special Rules are Evil

    WhammeWhamme - - General Discussion

    Post

    Special rules are great. Zeroing in on unlimited free reforms: Units should pivot. Wheeling is marginally more realistic but significantly more complicated. With that accomplished, no need to allow unlimited free reforms; one free reform and unlimited pivoting should be adequate.

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “So switching it to, essentially, 1 temporary health point? ” Most of my suggestions when in this context are not full suggestions but more like an example or a brainatorm idea. I always expect the rules team to work with it. Lots of better suggestions than my 1 temporary health point. Like you suggested - summer growth or EoS hereditary would be much better. ” Do NOT expect the Rules Team to catch things like that. Details like that (in particula…

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “@Aglion I've just been a little busy so was responding on my phone quickly and hoping someone else would explain it. lol First, I didn't say the hereditary has to synergize with everything in the book. But it does have to synergize with most or at least compliment or just fit. Like Aegon just posted: Quote from Aegon: “If the spell effect is so powerful that you have to include so much restrictions that it is only playable in a certain way, your design is flawed in the fi…

  • Quote from WastelandWarrior: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “60 goblins costs 900 points and actually wins combat on kills against 600 point units of WDG Warriors? ” 60 goblins with spears as is already beat 600 points of warriors, totally offtopic I know but hey! ” Pitting 24 Warriors (w/Spiked Shields = roughly 600 pts) vs. 60 Common Goblins (w/Spears, LA/Sh = 420 points)... Assume 6 wide vs. 5 wide for test #1, assume Horde vs. Horde for test #2. Test #1 The Warriors swing first. Hit on 3's, wound…

  • Quote from Cam: “Quote from yhandros: “That would be a disaster for O&G or BH. ” Because 360pts of Goblins who just lost 15 out of 60 of them should of course re-roll on a 9 for leadership and hold up an elite unit. ” If they can't do that, they're not even worth 360 points. Units that break or die in a single round and are basically chaff are worth maybe 120 points at the extreme upper end. So. Goblins down to 2 points per model sound fun to you? 360 points of chaff can hold up an elite uni…

  • Quote from Shlagrabak: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Yeah... try watching Furion's battle reports. Especially one that is basically him crowing "I won this game in the deployment phase!" for about eight minutes. ” Furion is an absolute end-member in the players spectrum. You can demonize him for being the antithesis of what you consider good for the game, but he is hardly representative of any category of players, even the so-called top players. He has kept coming back with criticisms about what ou…

  • Quote from Shlagrabak: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “This is a game designed for top level players, by top level players, and that has meant systematically stripping away anything that would let a "bad" player get lucky and beat them. Which is terrible game design ” Totally disagree on that one. First, there is still a substantial amount of randomness that plays out during the game and can lead. Watch/read any battle report and 80% percent of the time you will see people mentioning "rolling well/ba…

  • Hmmm. On reflection, no. This is a game designed for top level players, by top level players, and that has meant systematically stripping away anything that would let a "bad" player get lucky and beat them. Which is terrible game design, and removing the last vestigial remains of lucky breaks from the game wouldn't actually make the game better. (8th ed WH, for all it's flaws, could sometimes be randomly won by a bad player 6-dicing that spell that had good odds of killing your mage etc. - which…

  • I don't really find books to be that varied in their "out of bubble" play. Okay, sure, I've seen the odd Elf player go wide with any old troops, and I've definitely seen Dwarven Holds go wide (I've seen them skip a BSB too). But the thing is? You know what the #1 and #2 "yeah I can go wide here" moment is? Fighting against an enemy with no real shooting, and fielding an army that ignores Panic checks. Because it's fishing for free wins via lucky Panic checks that is where Discipline matters. And…

  • No, you DO get used to things costing the same. I've gotten tripped up by The Dead Arise costing variably for Necromancers and Vampires, and by the BSB being free for a Marshal. If anything, variable costs for mundane kit are the problem that should be changed to match. It's just annoying and fiddly, it adding balance is arguably illusory.

  • "We will look at the HBE ASAW and then decide stuff accordingly" seems to be the official statement. You can try to read the tea leaves but it would be crazy to expect people to tell you how a review is going to end. Maybe they match the community, maybe they stick with what they have because all the alternatives are worse, maybe they figure out a brilliant new solution that isn't what the community wanted per so. Nobody knows, because the review hasn't happened. Anywho, my latest 2c: "Every Elf…

  • Good catch. Idea needs some iterating. On foot only would probably help. "Models without an Honour Only" could be interesting. Many possibilities to tap next time someone looks at HBE design. Or not. Maybe too much overlap with MoCT. Then again, wizard BSB and wizard general that can both fight moderately well fits Elf archetype... *shrug*

  • An exception could plausibly be made for a mage specific item - there is a difference between improving offense for a Prince and making Offence for a wizard less anaemic. That said, I think a simpler solution would be Hero's Heart plus: "Flying Sword. Hand Weapon Enchantment. Bearer has Parry and 4 Attacks at Strength 5 and AP3." Or similar.

  • Quote from cptcosmic: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “People inherently want to maximise the use of something they take in their lists. It feels wrong when you don't really use a special rule a unit has. This means that when the optimal use of a unit is to basically ignore a special rule, it's a feel bad moment. That's the real problem here. Not price, but just a kitchen sink design. ” it feels wrong becaues you are paying for something you dont use but if you think that "using full potential" is a p…

  • Cross-army comparisons aren't particularly valid in general, but wizards are pretty uniformly costed because of the big change to how they work (which means they seem to have been standardized across armies and then adjusted; other units have experienced more iterative pricing). It also just served to illustrate a point: the BLT charges for everything that might help. It was meant to demonstrate that they don't charge that much; +2 R, +1 A and Plate (with Shield access) is worth more than 50 poi…

  • Quote from cptcosmic: “Quote from WhammeWhamme: “I mean, let us imagine a world where Sea Guard cost _less_ than Citizen Archers - are you really prepared to claim that they wouldn't then elbow Citizen Archers out of lists? ” assuming they would get 1-2 pts discount, 20-19ppm is still more than 17-18ppm now, make a list that utilizes sea guard to their full potential. then make a list that utilizes archers... oh wait, archers can almost always be used to their full potential from turn 1 on witho…

  • Quote from AlexCat: “Quote: “If you take a unit of Sea Guard and go "this is a unit of archers that can defend itself a bit better than regular archers" and deploy them shallow and focus on shooting with them every turn (and/or grabbing objectives), then you are using them for what they are priced for. ” So, you mean, they are just poor man's archers who can hold their ground from enemy light troops? Why would I pay a premium for them then?Its like if I would buy my archmage Destiny's Call and H…