Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 29.

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 WarX: “No at all contradictory. 20.A.c is more general rule then 20.B.g. Thus rules of Wall are of higher precedence then general rules. This is exactly as with all other rules ” There is no overruling in place here. Defending a Wall does not outright mean that you receive Cover. You can Defend a Wall while not benefiting from Cover. @AlexCat You can be behind the Wall, touching (being in contact with) while not being IN terrain. So yes you can be off the Wall and still touching thus …

  • page 79 rulebook, last points. You can remove your r&f from cc as long as you have at least same number of models in cc (so you can "make way" as part of reform) but you cannot remove your opponent's models (no matter r&f or not).

  • As member of Ośmiornica Łódzka (Octopus) club and co-organiser I'd like to invite you for Polish Master Series tournament. We hold this event as a club since 2007, always gathering about 70-80 players. It always have specific rules for 2vs2. Its one of a kind event because usually its off-season regarding ETC/PTC preparations. Everyone is there to have fun with friends, getting drunk playing weird allied lists. Most players get here on Friday evening to have more time socializing. I invite you a…

  • Quote from Alzam: “Quote from Eisenheinrich: “Quote from WastelandWarrior: “surely if the frenzied unit can't draw line of sight to a target it can't charge even if the path is cleared by the intervening unit charging? Quote from Eisenheinrich: “even if it can draw line of sight or not. ” ” Absolutely. Technically/RAW it'll still have to take the frenzy test (which you won't do at the table, just like you won't take a march test with a unit if you don't intend to perform a march move with it any…

  • Quote from amplebob: “Cheers for clarifying the above mad git situation (we played it wrong on Monday night then). I have another question about them, when do you roll and resolve the damage that they do, if there's more than one being released from a unit? Eg, 3 mad gits, first one is released, rolls high enough to hit a unit, do you resolve the hits straight away? Or do you release the other two mad gits before resolving hits? Thanks. ” >Resolve released Mad Gits one at a time. Surprise! Last …

  • 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.