Search Results

Search results 1-18 of 18.

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.

  • Wow that's awesome. Amazing that people exist that can't/won't see the intention. Anyway, @Alzam are you taking this to rct boards?

  • I don't know. Wouldn't it be simpler to change the CR granted from ranks to not be capped at 3? Would basically be the same without adding additional rules.

  • Can't wait...

  • I'm with @Zaidar on this. More durability would do a lot. Reduce crumble on themselves and any allies in same combat. For fluff reasons I've wanted a baseline 1 Arm for all skeleton units, but that would ruin more than it fixes mechanically. It would highlight that skeletons are not living and aren't affected by small stab wounds and pretty much immune to things such as arrows. But instead of the above, giving skeletons a small boost through a special rule would be cool and help set them apart f…

  • Horses with Arm 2 are wearing barding. If you go back to older versions you will see all of these with barding equipment. Nothing changed ☺️

  • Assassins - How?

    TheSpid - - Homebrew 9th Age

    Post

    I think both @Wesser and @JimMorr has some great ideas. Small fluffy rules to get the idea back is really all that's needed. This said, the concept of assassins on battlefields are a little off. You don't really sneak up on someone in an open field in broad daylight.

  • The 9th AGE - Meme Thread

    TheSpid - - WWW Topics

    Post

    I foresee one in the near future

  • Just to get one thing straight. The most likely changes that are going to happen if the switch to squares is made is this: - switch to squares - WMs get 360° Los This is the estimated changes as presented by @DanT. There's no free pivots. There's no unwieldy. When people (like @DJWoodelf) talk about other changes, this is their ideas and suggestions and not what is currently expected to happen. (For the record most of his ideas are very excellent changes imo.) Lastly. Please remember this is not…

  • Quote from wombat: “One of the reasons given for the proposed change is to streamline the rules. So cannot imagine even more rules just for Round base WM. I honestly feel that the NEW RULES when they come to write them will be just as long as the present rules to cover any loopholes from bringing in untested rules that in the end it will prove to be a complete waste of time. ” I'm sorry if this is too blunt. There is no new loopholes by changing to squares. There simply isn't. We all know the ex…

  • Warmachines: Round or not ?

    TheSpid - - General Discussion

    Post

    That's probably not what's going to happen though. If squares are chosen, WMs are most likely getting 360° Los on top of changing the base. This meaning the only effects it will have on the game will be in regards to them being engaged in cc. I'm voting squares for the following reasons: - simpler rules - Streamlining of rules - No more weird charge/overrun shenanigans that are specific to warmachines - If the change is for the better(I believe it is) there is no reason to wait - Aesthetics are …

  • That would be a great change although it now has little to do with the thread title I think it's a great idea to differentiate fortitude and aegis more, but I think the actually very great idea of the OP will have some unwanted effects.

  • Quote from mrmossevig: “Do you want to elaborate on exactly WHY you think Fortitude becomes more powerful? Is it because the cannons lose their threat potential when there is a counter to the spike damage? ” yes

  • I have a few thoughts on this: + Much more flavorful for Fortitude + Less spike variance - Fortitude becomes more powerful I need to add a few words on the last part because this has a much larger impact than some might think. The idea presented that this will help monsters against cannons (and other multiple wound single hit weaponry) is correct. The issue here is that it only helps those specific monsters. If this was a more broadly owned monster rule then it would directly affect cannons. Now…

  • UD 2.0 FAQ thread

    TheSpid - - Undying Dynasties (UD)

    Post

    So I looked into this and it appears my mind wasn't remembering correctly. We changed some other minor wording in the text, but actually haven't looked at this issue before. I've reported the issue as an unintended rules interaction. Personally I wouldn't play this as working. It is definitely not intended and I am quite confident it will be made clear when the text is updated.

  • UD 2.0 FAQ thread

    TheSpid - - Undying Dynasties (UD)

    Post

    I'm quite certain this has been discussed in RC. Actually thought we changed the wording, but my mind is exceptionally fuzzy lately. I'll try and take a look and dig something up about it.

  • UD 2.0 FAQ thread

    TheSpid - - Undying Dynasties (UD)

    Post

    The First amongst equals rule specifically stated that only a single model part will get the benefit. So 5 total crew attacks.

  • UD 2.0 FAQ thread

    TheSpid - - Undying Dynasties (UD)

    Post

    Ah right. Haven't even looked at it ☺️ We'll in that case I agree it could be an issue, albeit a very minor one considering the slot and item allowance cost.

  • UD 2.0 FAQ thread

    TheSpid - - Undying Dynasties (UD)

    Post

    A 5 point discount for a worse effect that takes up an artefact slot. No thanks. I'll stick to the Heirophant upgrade. Doesn't really seem like an issue like you said.