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 WhammeWhamme: “And while the proposal as a whole would get more "niche" items getting tried, that'll be purely because of the massive point drop on them - which does not need to paired with a massive price hike on defensive items calculated to make sure nobody ever dares try to put their characters on the front lines. ” You'de be surprised at how interesting a game gets when there are actual stakes when your characters stand a real chance of being harmed. Quote from matrim: “Making de…

  • Quote from lawgnome: “1) Get rid of the majority of defensive items and grant the defense to the character inherently. 2) Make a separate item budget for weapons/armor and for "trinkets" (i.e. anything that doesn't count as a weapon or armor). ” ...also 3. Have some actually powerful non-defensive items. 4. Price everything defensive at a +100-200% premium, price everything else 25-70% lower. Quote from lawgnome: “Give every character an inherent form of special defense (a 5+ fortitude save for …

  • Quote from Danrakh: “Quote from theunwantedbeing: “Line formation is - 6+ models wide for large size models. ” Could you please provide page in rulebook to back up this statement?AFAIK there is no differentiation between Large and Standard models in context of Line Formation, thus above is false? ” ....hmmm I'll go change that. It's just 8 models wide of any size and you're in Line Formation..

  • Line formation is - 8 or more models wide - for standard size models, - 6+ models wide for large size models. Close formation is - 7 or less models wide for standard size models, - 5 or less wide for large size models Edited because the rules for large models in line formation aren't the same as the old horde formation ones and I had forgotten.

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Pellegrim: “Mmmm ... what do we think? ” Applies to all of them but it's especially obvious with this new layout, how do we know which things we can take just one of and which things we can take more than one of? The previous one with everything aligned in columns is much clearer in my view, and it's much simpler to show which options only let you pick one of them and the others where you can select any number of them. ie. you can have a shield and a weapon, but you can only have one …

  • Quote from JimMorr: “If you'll choose path of adjectives for attack attributes you may also consider adding 3 more standard attributes for re-use: ” That's just adding more nested rules, rather than simply changing the names of the currently nested rules. The point of stripping the term "attack" away from the names of rules that aren't special attacks is to aid clarity and make it harder for players to guess wrong when using our currently (somewhat unhelpful) method of spreading the rules out in…

  • One thing that always struck me as odd is how we're using the term Close Combat, when there's no just Combat. It's Close Combat or....nothing at all. 1. Melee Phase Melee Attacks: Close Combat Attacks & Special Attacks 2. Shooting Phase Shooting Attacks: Shooting Attacks & Special Shooting Attacks There's a discrepancy in how we're naming everything. If they were more consistent there would be less confusion and more clarity overall. eg. 1. Melee Phase Melee Attacks: Combat Attacks & Special Com…

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Pellegrim: “Another little preview, Orc Warlords and Chief. Orc book 95% done now. ” Looks pretty good Five nitpicks though - I don't think there's any point to the terms general, attack and defence above the profiles, that or it should say global, defensive and offensive instead - couldn't the general options go in that big space on the right hand side under the model rules? - size/type/base aren't aligned with the model rules - the names under greenhide race don't align with anythin…

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Eru: “Quote from theunwantedbeing: “...what index? ” Check my edit in my last post. ” Yeah found that and edited my post. As for feedback on it. The index checking method has flaws, you can unintentionally skip important information. eg. Sweeping Attacks It's a special attack, but if you just found it using the index you won't know that because it doesn't mention being a special attack anywhere in it's description. So new players are likely to play it as if it wasn't one and that migh…

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Eru: “I open my rulebook to the end, check the index, and see: ” ...what index? Ah this one: the-ninth-age.com/filebase/ind…fad86457cf57360b55d86ecd1 It would be clearer if the rules were either entirely alphabetical, or were split into the same 3 groups they're split into on the profiles. You get 2 bits of info when you come across a rule you don't know in the army list. - The name so things need to be listed alphabetically if possible, common sense stuff - What section it exists in …

  • Correct, only models in the duel can attack each other.

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Caledoriv: “Quote from Pellegrim: “If you approach this game as a science project maybe. But the fact the special rules were pulled apart in the main rulebook .... really just annoyed me? ” I can only press "Like" once :(. I feel the same way; the split of special rules was about the most confusing thing that happened to T9A.If this split was cancelled and the rules reworded accordingly, there'd be little reason to not switch to a single line format. ” What do you mean confusing? The …

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Pellegrim: “Now let T9A make a choice ” Indeed. the-ninth-age.com/index.php?at…fad86457cf57360b55d86ecd1 Looks alright.

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    If you're going to put the model rules underneath when it's a single model, it's worth splitting them into columns that correspond with the statlines they apply to.

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from Kovlovsky: “If you're a classical Mandarin reader, yes it might be simpler to read something vertically. But in most of the world, language ” I think you need to finish your post unless I'm misunderstanding things. My classic mandarin is awful. ...whoosh.

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from There Is No Spoon: “This one is easy, remember those unit tables at the back of the army books? One page, all the info in a single table. You could ask any 3 strangers to compare stats and they could manage with a linear form, but I doubt they could with the current format. ” That could easily be done for the back of the book reference, I'de not be opposed to that. Quote from Pellegrim: “@Cam I really want to hear you, but honestly, did you look at the multipart single line examples. …

  • Statline Design change

    theunwantedbeing - - Suggestions

    Post

    Quote from There Is No Spoon: “Quote from lawgnome: “I don’t think any arguments can legitimately be made that any one version should be taken over another due to “beginner friendliness”. The line version isn’t any more intuitive than the three line version. ” Some your other arguments seem well-reasoned, others less so, but the above statement is simply incorrect. ” Yes, the three line version is more beginner friendly. Quote from There Is No Spoon: “I was able to provide four reasons, each roo…

  • Quote from Chip: “Although I would like to see some changes in the rule, @theunwantedbeing , from the Rules Clarity team, said, ” I'de like to see some changes as well (I've edited my post to include how I'de like to see duels changed, feel free to let me know what you think) It's definitely worth having the discussion and throwing idea's around, especially if you can find and then avoid any unforseen loopholes in suggestions people make. Often there's a really really great idea in the comments …

  • Yes That's the entire point of them. No It's not going to get changed ever. ....however. What I'de personally like to see done with them is as follows: 1. You need to be in base contact to declare a duel at an enemy. 2. Make way happens after duels have been declared. 3. Duels issued by models smaller than you can be ignored without penalty. 4. After winning a duel(killing your opponent) you can take their weapon/shield/artefacts if they're the same size as you. (or would be if not mounted) 5. B…

  • Quote from The Beninator: “What are the arguments against the idea of not allowing overruns when you wipe out a WM? ” - Players will use them as chaff to stop enemy chargers likely taking advantage of the rules that stop enemies deliberately charging multiple units or just benefiting from how they'll be unable to overrun like they would with any other unit. - Everything else can be overrun, why not war machines? - The disadvantage of the enemy getting to pick which part of your front they engage…