Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 24.

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.

  • you are correct.

  • Hi! As one of guys who pushed the idea of introducing Big Wing in the game I decided to drop few words despite the fact that probably i should not (after all its closed door stuff and its really ACS/PR/others job to deliver such lines). It was decided long time ago that we want to close the book for design changes. Only books which were to have design changes were those in Beta (WDG, DL). Despite that we decided to add this option and the option for Big Brother on Giant. Sole reason - models ran…

  • wouldn't it work same as with DT tests? Example- have a large chariots with less than 3 hp per model unit. Like 2 hp per model in the statline. Then I'd say that when testing DT you roll 3 dice for each model and for each such batch you can lose at most 2hp (since dt are resolved on model per model basis and against a model). It is still one common health pool but I'd consider it similarly to for example limit on multiple wounds. Obviously such interpretation is terribly clumsy to be resolved su…

  • Quote from Eisenheinrich: “But yes, unlike for shooting, looks like the rules do not explicitely state that a spell cannot be cast if there is no viable target. I'll take a closer look later . ” that's what I was after. I do get intention and know why @Lagerlof answered how he did but I claim there is nothing in rules explicitly forbidding such casting attempt.

  • Quote from Kathal: “Quote from JimMorr: “3. When do I nominate target for a spell? Before casting attempt? Can I cast a spell with no valid targets available? E.g. to trigger attribute spell? ” No. You need a legal target to be able to cast a spell. ” any quote? I looked briefly and it seems that quite good interpretation of "if applicable choose target" is that you can have empty set of targets to choose from and there is nothing forbidding you from casting such spell.

  • page 2 of errata document says that you see unit if you see model inside the unit as well.

  • Can someone change @Uthegen badge into something more appropriate? BookBringer? Amazon Agent?

  • That's why I'm not really suggesting doing that. I only highlight that it's far from infinite possibilities regarding careful unit positioning. Even more so given that UB already did that. Really building on top of UB would be much easier. At least visualisation would be off the table

  • Quote from Auto2: “Despite what some people have said I still think that the set of allowed moves needs to be finite rather than infinite or else various problems will arise. ” Its not infinite in RL as well. Its common misconception but in fact human can play only up to certain detail. If you have differences in placement of roughly 1mm they are sometimes extremely difficult to measure ending up with two players not being able to tell the difference. Even if it sometimes means games being lost …

  • News: Map Pack 2019 update!

    slivek - - General Discussion

    Post

    Call me lazy but I simply wont do the count now and by the time I would do it I might have answer ready. @Frederick - do you have stats for terrain usage? Sum of Terrain Features used in particular sets of maps? Is the count same for maps 9-16 as it was on last ETC?

  • +1 for username AS mentioned few times already - if anyone seriously think about doing that I'm all for it. So far I had enough on my plate to not kick-start the project and I have not heard about anyone doing so.

  • V205 Error report thread

    slivek - - General Discussion

    Post

    yup sounds like that

  • V205 Error report thread

    slivek - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Eisenheinrich: “Portent of Doom (...) where X is 1 plus the number of Characters joined to in the unit. ” This does not seem like good change. According to this post: [.205 change] Divination and evocation, design overlap We agreed to use wording "joined to the unit" not "in the unit". @fjugin - can you please confirm it to RCT since I'm linking thread in RT internal?

  • Is T9A slowly getting... better?

    slivek - - Archive

    Post

    from what i witnessed the ones who resigned from WDG did so long before last summer and now it seems to me that some picked this army up. Certainly in those builds which emerged as top it was able to reach high and score high. I bet difference lies in time period one takes into consideration and whether someone changes army because of feel or because of power.

  • Quote from JamesMcDonnell: “Etc ref's didn't all seem to be 100% on it over the weekend ” We* were sure about this. It is a custom though to confirm with other ref/rulebook if possible to minimize chance of mistake. * - etc refs. One of which is member of RCT as well.

  • Quote from Nicreap: “Quote from slivek: “To sum up - your interpretation is not RAW (if it would be stated in light troops rule that "instead of regular rules for movement..." I would agree with you). Comment above about changing list is my personal statement and for official one we will talk with rest of refs. ” You clearly didn't read this entire thread, you are making the exact same mistake the RCT originally did. Please provide a qoutation that states a models movement is the same as a unit'…

  • But you have perfect clear explanation why your interpretation is not RAW as well. At first for me it also made sense that this light troops stuff should overwrite but I have to admit its nowhere near clear. Its up for interpretation. Blame project not refs that you interpreted rules differently And sorry but everyone with light troops in the list can now state that they are getting hit by this interpretation Changing list now is not going to make everyone happy. Rather is bound to provoke other…

  • @Nicreap we are well aware that we are judging here two separate issues: failed march test and light troops in advance move. @eggsPR I'm RAW kind of guy. Sometimes to the extreme. Still we get as ref team to conclusion that its better for flow of the even to rule it as it was presented here (it was not that short discussion). We are well aware of the implications of the decision. We are also well aware of implications if we would not rule it this way. Personally I'm saddened that we had to chang…

  • @Eisenheinrich : @fjugin @slivek @KeyserSoze @van der loo @gundizalbo

  • Phase 202v of Path of Magic Feedback Beta

    slivek - - Archive

    Post

    in 280 lists at current supposed top level you found 35 apprentices not counting conclave, Crown or wdg Giant. Yet you call it "so few". It's 1/8 on average. I claim this conclusion is far fetched and the proposals of a change do not match magnitude of the supposed problem here. 5 point less if anything seems like the deal for some of the less taken apprentices. But it's natural that as soon as someone spots a problem often he proposed overblown solution and actually much smaller fix can cut the…