Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 37.

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 Daemonic engine: “This weekend I used two units of 25 warriors with shields and zealots banner. They strike good enough against R4 and minimal armour saves. He hits back and hates every spiked shield hit that returns a favour. A hit back for a succesfull armour save would be too good, don't ask... ” That's far from precise examples... What were they fighting? What difference did the spiked shields make?

  • Quote from Daemonic engine: “Well, spiked shields can be really nasty on warrior core bricks, CL, DM and forsworn. In my games it managed to be quite potent. Fighting EoS? Feel the pain, petty humans... Fighting OaG? Take that... Fighting OK? Eat that, tribesmen! Fighting Elves? I hate you. ... ” Can you give us precise examples in which spiked shields are so potent in those matchups?

  • Quote from Happy Aspid: “Quote from yedee: “This is what frustrates me the most: WDG gets a lot of marginal and complicated special rules. New HFA and spiked shields are prime example. Spiked shield concept, if viable at all (matter of opinion), only works for CL and DL (due to S5 ap2 base coupled with ability to get 1+ rerollable). So why don't we ditch the rule completely and replace it with armour enchantement and be done with it? No other restrictions (like only unmounted) - plain and simple…

  • This is what frustrates me the most: WDG gets a lot of marginal and complicated special rules. New HFA and spiked shields are prime example. Spiked shield concept, if viable at all (matter of opinion), only works for CL and DL (due to S5 ap2 base coupled with ability to get 1+ rerollable). So why don't we ditch the rule completely and replace it with armour enchantement and be done with it? No other restrictions (like only unmounted) - plain and simple design.

  • Quote from alfika: “Yes we could have said only enemy units suffer from the effect or that models in Hellfirge totaly ignores it but that would have been a much stronger thing and fluffwise it should not, some warriros will be able to stand up to toxic trough their progression but not all. We will lose some on the way. ” Why are HFA units completely immune to toxic damage other units receive when walking through a portal then? I can't stand it when fluff is used as a justification for some rules…

  • And that is once again a poor design. What do melee combats have to do with marching though?

  • @Happy Aspid So basically you are saying we need to play with Herald to at least partially mitigate loss of march re-rolls. Remember Herald can't be everywhere at once and the Atrribute range is very short and you can't expect him to realiably cast enogh spells to cover every need.

  • Quote from AutoHammer: “complete immunity to toxic is a bad design because it would add far too much skew. VS player with lots of toxic? LOL get rekt, unfun game. ” Tell that to KoE player facing those "lots of toxic attacks" VS. You could make countless arguments that certain rule on any chosen army makes life harder for some build in another army but you don't see tons of people complaining about 3++ etheral units in VC that screw armies without magical attacks. That is part of the game and it…

  • Don't forget that VS are not only about toxic attacks. It's like 2++ against fire in case of some units/armies (ID?), I don't think it would be as broken as you claim. Due to the fact that HFA already gives one special rule over regular plate armour I think we would be fine without this "toxic attack clause" desing-wise.

  • If we didn't lose re-roll marchers and just gained this 5++ against toxic in addition to it then I wouldn't really care as 95% of players would forget about it's existance within 6 months. When I'm losing a useful rule (fluff rule is worthless so I ignore it completely) then I'm expecting some price decrease. On top of another price decrease due to the entire army being bottom tier. And on top of other price deacreases for rules that I lost (like Spiked Shields on Knights). HFA 5++ against toxic…

  • Quote from DanT: “Right, but then your issue is with the price, not the design. So I wouldn't waste time moaning about the design I cannot answer you further on prices because I disagree with RT consensus on the prices for warriors. To the extent that I specifically brought them up on a meeting and made several of the points that have been made in this thread. But the point of being part of a team is that one gets outvoted sometimes. I must trust&hope that my colleagues are right. ” No it's not …

  • Taking away useful rules to replace them with fluff rules without adequate price adjustments is still baffling. My previous questions stand: Quote from yedee: “So according to what you say the price of the warriors got lowered twice (step 1 and 2) and still they ended costing just 1ppm less (apart from great weapon ones who stayed the same)? What about warrior knights? Don't you think that it's kind of pointless to keep internally strong choices (as supposedly warriors are) without changes while…

  • Quote from Krokz: “Quote from yedee: “Who are those 25+ External Experts if I may ask? ” AFAIK best tournament players in the world from various countries, usually top ETC players, which are personally contacted (since vast majority of players are not on this forum or part of T9A staff, this is why "external") to help the cause. @DanT can correct me if I am wrong ” So an anonimous group of individuals is behind all that pricing? That does sound convienient, doesn't it? I know it's probably not a…

  • Quote from Krokz: “Quote from yedee: “I hope I don't sound rude, I'm just genuinely interested in finding out how all of that works. ” After getting data report like what is used and not used plus army and unit tiers from 25+ External Experts, something like more than 10 people blindly priced every price point entry you see in WDG book (blindly means they didn't saw what others put in as price). Medians were formed and RT voted on them, mostly passing them.So each individual could had their own …

  • Quote from Krokz: “Quote from fjugin: “The power level shift that comes with the removal of reroll break test is dependent in the unit. Some units don't care at all (warrior chariots). Other care quite a bit, such as skywheel or chosen knights. ” Are you sure about that? Because I stopped using Chariots after reroll Break was removed. Reroll Break helped their staying power after Charging, I used them as tarpits. Warrior Chariot usually loose combat by 1 or 2, not more, and here Break rerolls he…

  • Quote from fjugin: “... ” Wait, what? Chosen knights are cheaper? Some favours droped in price but they generally are more expensive now. So according to what you say the price of the warriors got lowered twice (step 1 and 2) and still they ended costing just 1ppm less (apart from great weapon ones who stayed the same)? What about warrior knights? Don't you think that it's kind of pointless to keep internally strong choices (as supposedly warriors are) without changes while the army externaly is…

  • Quote from DanT: “Quote from Krokz: “@DanT If old BLT did not lower prices enough because they felt reroll March is at least as strong as reroll Break, and now new RT didn't do it* when reroll March was removed, what does this mean? *Great Weapon Warriors still cost the same Warrior Knights lost Spiked Shield AND reroll March AND were not played in bottom army: 8% price decrease ” I explicitly brought this up on RT meeting.You'll have to ask the rest of RT, cos I'm not sure I really understood t…

  • Quote from Krokz: “Quote from yedee: “Does substituting an actually uselful rule (re-roll break tests and later re-roll marches) for that mariginal "flavour rule" warrants any price decrease? ” It did? If not enough it will in next update. ” Not going to argue about that since pricing policy is a big mystery to me. I was just under the impression that those humble point drops on some HFA units were supposed to be minor buffs and not price correction for losing useful rules... At least it was por…

  • Quote from Palmu: “Quote from yedee: “The HFA change is terrible...what is the point...? ” Mechanically there isn't one. It's not looking for an upper hand in the game, it's just the end result of a process looking to give Veil based damage a mechanical effect and to explain why HFA units are immune to moving through areas congested with it while others suffer - HFA acts like a medieval hazmat suit. It's not meant to be a real upper hand, and it's not meant to cost much anything (and doesn't). I…

  • The HFA change is terrible. Every iteration of WDG book the armour gets worse and worse, why does one even bother giving such mariginal rules like aegis 5+ against toxic attacks? Not only are they very rare but the 5++ is no solid protection anyway... Let's say you fight 10 Censer Bearers or get hit by Breath of Corrpution or similar thing (Stygio breath maybe?) - what difference does new HFA make? On average you are preventing 1 wound at the most (due at least Res4 on every HFA model), what is …