Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 69.

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.

  • "After times for discuss, the RT decided to keep the change on hereditary as it is. The main reason is because it would impact both pricing and resurrected values which is really too much for a patch update (and very hard to test in a such short time)." This statement makes my head want to explode! How was there enough time to playtest the change to the +2 and how it effects points and res values to begin with? I'm not at all surprised by that reasoning, just frustrated and disappointed.

  • I find the hellmaw unique and interesting to play against. I do get to face it quite often, so I think that helps in figuring out counterplay. I find that unless my opponent plans it very well, he ends up with units a bit unsupported as they hop through the portals. My opinion is that portals are easier to deal with than large ambushing units. When I play against large ambushing units I often feel I have to play so conservative that I struggle to compete for the objective or to make points. Agai…

  • Maybe the better question is why is choosing any spell for skink priest considered more valuable to SA than it is for VS prophet? What are the synergies or other abilities driving that value? And do those arguments/values still hold true today based on data?

  • The only issue I have with @Iluvatar attempt to explain the teams logic is that I have consistently been told by staff members not to compare points across army books, so how could points be used to determine the power of a unit? (Question is rhetorical, not looking to argue the explanation, just pointing out an inconsistency in how methodology is applied) I can see a huge unit of chariots being difficult to remove, but are they going to have enough support to be part of an effective army? If th…

  • I don't get the logic of the chariot change. You could have 10 when they were cheaper, but now they've been made more expensive as a nerf which triggers them to be too expensive to run in units of 10? They certainly can't all of the sudden be OP because they're more expensive, and they didn't have any rule changes; so from a game stand point they're the same. If the worry is point denial, the change forces multiple characters into the unit to get to 9 (full 3rd rank to take full advantage of FIE…

  • My Army: UD Opponent: WotDG Battleline with Flags Score: 15-5 MVP: Ambushing Skeletons; Opponent had to expose flank of generals unit to them to avoid flank from a tougher unit. Rolled well, he rolled poorly and they chased him down. LVP: Healing. Healed very few wounds and trying to heal cost me both the ability to cast additional buffs and had me fail a key spell that made that magic phase ineffective. Opponent was very rusty and I won the positioning battle. His ability to leap to safety thro…

  • I might be willing to put a marksman's banner on a unit of handgunners with the points savings proposed (would be nice if banners for light infantry came down in price.....) .

  • How about a banner that reduces crumbling somehow for multiple combats? Maybe the bearer's unit takes additional wounds to reduce other units crumble or the bearing unit's casualties aren't counted for other units crumble.

  • Another suggestion is to limit the number of times large units can be targeted in a turn as the gigantic and character models are now. This could also be done in conjunction with rsr reduction on some units.

  • The overall goal that we were told about was to improve external and internal balance. So the part about bringing the UD magic phase in line with T9A principles came as a shock. It also isn't strictly speaking necessary to balance, though it may achieve that. So it feels like going into the balance work with a solution in mind to me, but then I'm not in the RT meetings so I don't know how that work statement came to be and can only tell you how it feels to me after the fact. Looking forward to s…

  • @WhammeWhamme While I don't agree with you on the subject of the +2 CV, I do appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to be part of the discussion.

  • @WhammeWhamme I don't think past mistakes should be a reason not to change things now. However, I would like it considered that a better option could have been chosen if the team were told back then that this didn't follow the magic philosophy when deciding what change to make. Also, I would like it considered that those of us playing the army will bear the burden of any changes, so what we consider more intrusive should be a factor. And maybe the community as a whole will consider +2 CV less in…

  • @WhammeWhamme We're not asking for rules changes to make the army better. We're asking for a different rule change to nerf them than the one that has been chosen.

  • I'd also wonder why "if the spell is more powerful, it should have a higher casting value" is all of the sudden axiomatic truth? Where was this philosophy when the UD book was being created? If that was held then, maybe another option would have been looked at. Intrusiveness of a change is very subjective, so I'd hope community opinion on which option is less intrusive would carry a fair amount of weight. There are a fair number of people saying go ahead and nerf magic, just don't do it this way…

  • As mentioned before, UD would not be the only exception to the more powerful spell = higher casting rule. Druidism gets this exception, but it's not used by a too tier army so it's ok? We have argued that res value changes are less intrusive. Just because RT feels the CV is less intrusion be doesn't mean they are right. That's not something you can determine analytically. In addition we've argued that skeletons and NG suffer most from this change which hurts internal balance. The arguments are n…

  • That is a pretty misleading paragraph if that really is the intention. Starts out talking about wanting feedback because there are multiple ways to solve issues, especially the rules changes, and then says only points are on the table for adjusting after beta. I hope that wasn't the intention. There have been plenty of well reasoned arguments as to why other options are better. Maybe I am wrong and this option is the best for the game, but equally maybe RT is wrong and another option is better. …

  • @WhammeWhamme Here is the following from the release post: "This also means that this update is way more "data" driven than before, but we also want to give the community a chance to look at the updates, play with them, and give feedback before we "freeze" the rules gain. As a result we will gather the community feedback through our Army Community Support team members in the forum, analyze the feedback, and the Rules Team will then work on & finalize and then release the final update for the nex…

  • The banner of 360 degree charging was way OP back in the GW game. I like the idea and the attempt to reduce it's power, but I think it would be tough to balance it.

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “ Getting the RT to roll-back or modify the CV hike? Not a realistic goal. Getting the UD attribute to work in a fair and balance-able way is a more important goal than getting skeletons or sphinxes or whatever to be competitively viable. Skeletons and Sphinxes can be price cut down to viability. They don't need to be raised more efficiently to be viable. ” So is RT taking feedback in the beta phase or not? On just some things or all things? I'm confused. If the situatio…

  • I don't know if the hierarch is the cause of the issue or not. I think it's a little over simplifying to say people wouldn't spend that many points on magic if it wasn't too good because a) people may be drawn to this army by the magic and b) it lends itself to requiring some magic so it's easy to go all in on magic (in for a penny, in for a pound). I don't mind trying to nerf the hierarch, I just don't like the method chosen because how it effects planning and executing in the magic phase. Espe…