Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 466.

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.

  • Download portal confusion

    Casp - - General Discussion


    But isent the same the same for forum download page ? I dont see any way to look previous editions from download forum page ? Its only in the sub page that you can found the version. Cant we imagine to organize better the filebase page to get same feature here. I really think archive should be distinct from download.

  • Quote from Norbaminiatures: “Not planned for now. ” Yeah i was suprise too of this choice, you have all the structure, to offer a variant of the war altar, that fit too a arcane engine. With few new piece

  • Download portal confusion

    Casp - - General Discussion


    @Grimbold Blackhammer there is already an icon and a errata file on the website download page. You just have to update it. Tell me if you need something more ? Personnaly i think remove the download page from the forum would be better to prevent such issue. And keep on forum only filebase, as archive system.

  • Quote from Ghiznuk: “Because if you give free rein to Art, then you can't expect that art to be in line with the background. ” Well no, but you can expect the background to be in line with art wich is equivalent There is no special reason that background has to be decided wy writting word rather than drawing picture they are both different way to create a background. And if BG first start Big picture with word, it already limited art, into a direction. Process you describe between author and art…

  • @Giladis To solve this in my opinion, i always think we should we do reverse engine. BGT, give big picture ART team free to create Then BGT start the real work based on art team work. Would be a really easier process i think. To get something coherent

  • Infantry peasant,should be used as a kind of cheap chaff for KoE. Send in first line, trying to create the good opening for Knight. WOuld be pretty cool to play. i dont how to do to make this playstyle possible or usefull., but woudl be great. Maybe because Knight are so expensive.. you cant even loose 300 pt for peasants. Peasant, even cheaper and worse at fight ? And make some limit in number, to prevent steadfast abuse ? Maybe be closer from VS slave.

  • Well if we can dream the old WHFB 4/5th edition was so cool 3 wide is already a bad copy from the orginal formation. for younger player, i talk about this formation: XXX .XX ..X Now some people tell me its complicate to see which figurine touch , or it create issue for flank.. But personnaly i dont feel like those issue are so big, comparate to the beauty of the formation on the table ^^;

  • hum do new special rules suggestion correct too ?

  • top 5: 1. mobility allowing flanking strategy (long move range + short wheel due to lance formation + fly) 2. chevalry fluff. ( there could be even more honor and chevalry question. That could be nerf for the army - For exemple i like when old bret dont use warmachine) 3. the green kinght ( so cool to play) 3. virtue, ( because i like make list and they offering some cool combo option ) 5. blessing concept (even if i would love to have more interrogation to decide if i should pray or not , and i…

  • Quote from Klexe: “A 1 inch wheel with a 12+ lance will result in a huge move in the back from the last model. Some math savy can say it to you ” This isent so problematic, first you can anticipate to not place your self in a bad position. And as you are not limited, in number of wheel you can in most case solve issue, by making micro movement. wheel of 0,2 inch then move 1 inch, micro wheel again etc.. In some situation it could be boring, but its nothing compare to the move advantage that you …

  • Quote from Klexe: “Disagree. The lance formation is know to be bad for maneuvering. Depends on the way you move ” Uh ? Then no body will ever play with speed banner... Compare a move with 3 or 5 wide with two wheel, one of 25° and a second of 45°. There is already 3 feet of difference. So a loss of around 20% of your move... If you make larger wheel, or if you choose 6 wide, it become even more impressive.

  • Quote from Ludaman: “I’m not a fan of 3 wide, but mainly because of looks and difficulty with maneuvering. ” Uh . But 3 wide is a hudge bonus to maneuvering. Making wheel cheap, in move cost. @Klexe But why do you think Lance actually have issue ? i dont have th impression that KoE is so OP actually or in top tier ? And even worse if you remove druidism, or OP flying character... Well knight in lance formation, are actualy not a real issue for all other army that have access to lot of chaff. Per…

  • Quote from Klexe: “Remember if the 3 wide lance formation should deal dmg you cant break them over flank either most likely and thus you need 10 guys 5 wide to break steadfast over flank ” I dont understand ? I think its really important that's small unit of at least 6 knight flanked an unit should break steadfast. Playing with move is so cool, it should be the center of all strategy for a cavalry army. Lance formation rule effect could be different in front and flank/rear.

  • I would say : • Doing dmg Breaking steadfast should be reserved to flank tactical strategy. If we cant flank enough with our army, then there is an issue with the number of small unit we can have, or chaff. We are a mobile army, there is lot more reward to success break an ennemy by flanking it successfully due, to good stretgical move choice, than just breaking it, because i have charge it like a bull straight forward.

  • VC slimbook - reimagined

    Casp - - New army books


    Quote from GrayGork: “I would love to see an infantry unit of lower level vampires, like blood knights but on foot. they could have different buffs depending on the bloodline the list has. ” Personnaly I would feel it destroy immersion of the army. Vampire has to be rare.

  • @DanT If test is limited to unit engaged, there would be not so much test, seems acceptable. Changing my initial proposition to prevent order when engaged by limited to a succesfful LD. And maybe then Great tactician automaticly pass test. Personnaly i am never annoying by rolling dice to have a fluffy impact in our game, its the heart of this game immersion. And it is one of the major complain of player against T9A in VS and O&G for exemple. (having remove all those unnecessary but so cool,…

  • @Smythen i introduce some drawback in my proposition to compensate my vision of an army where we have a lot more order easily. - Yes we have potentially more order given, but we are also more dependant to order, without order, we loose mobility- The ennemy could play with stratgey to try to destroy our synergie by killing some character, or engaged some command unit. Increasing strategy aspect seem always good to me, and even better when it looks like a fluff reason. Now those considerations are…

  • Yep same for me, the link on download page send to a verison from november:

  • Quote from Bing: “Umm... is there a reason the Daemon Legions book on the RUles download page says it should be the Dec 26, "Beta 2020" version, but when I click on it, the file is the old 2.4, Nov 29 version? The other army books seem to be linking the correct file ” @Grimbold Blackhammer ?

  • Ok so lets continue and try some more imaginative though - A new line of battle. Actually order, are a kind of specific buff limited in number and range. What if order become more crucial for the army. If the good progress of the battle depend of the ability of our character to give order. Make the maneuverability of the army dependant of the order, make the order easier to give, and easier for the opponent to counter. Integrate cavalry into order system. Unified the system to remove difference …