Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 784.

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Quote from rolan: “while monsters are better If " spammed", many monsters are next to useless If used alone. It has already been stated that " 1 monster is not a problem" meaning that all armies have options to get rid off a single monster, and fast. The question is, why would I use a single monster If all it does is die fast? The reason why they are used with " target saturation" is simply that they are too easily countered If alone. And even using a couple of them is far from auto-win. That is…

  • Quote from Gaius Marius: “...snip.... ” Liked for style! More limits is certainly one way to reduce single model spam, but for me it should be a last resort. Ideally, if we get balance right, spam should be less common, and less problematic for the opponent to play against so the people who spam single models like FDEs because that is what they enjoy playing (not because it's what they think makes the strongest list) can still do so.

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Ah ... parry. The last piece of pride for the sword and board wielding warrior in the 9th Age. Sure, the plus one armour is nice, but with the vast amount of armour negating attacks in the 9th Age, it's hardly worth calcualting in anymore (that's a bit extreme, examplary). Parry is, however. It is brilliant. It protect the average Joe Footslogger from being absolutely ravaged by those elite and strong warriors/ troops. A last hope. It doesn work against those pesky elves, …

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “.. people on different sides of this discussion... ” What discussion? The single models one? We haven't established there is a problem there, still. Or the new lack of rank and file units (of at least 20 models, legacy)? ” We don't need to have empirically proven something for there to be a discussion. People are talking about a subject, expressing varied and sometimes opposed viewpoints. That sounds like a discussion to me. The fact that we hav…

  • Ok, I'm curious to see whether there are any areas where some agreement/consensus can be reached between people on different sides of this discussion. So I'm going to ask people on both sides of the discussion to list any points made by the other side which you agree with, or think may be at least partially right, even if you think they have misdiagnosed the cause, or drawn the wrong conclusions from it. Discaimer: I am not trying to be divisive by lumping people into "for and against" camps, ju…

  • Quote from Slayer Zabojcow: “At this moment MSU is cancer of the project. Small specialist units should be available from special or other slots, while core should remain full of medium to large-sized blocks of infantry (there should be no possibility for MSU in core, this should apply to every army). ” MSU scoring darts, yes, but MSU core who are actually in the list to fight? That's a very different beast. Quote from Slayer Zabojcow: “Maybe it is just me but MSU looks like modern warfare inste…

  • As @Giladis said, when our LAB comes around the book will be rebuilt from the ground up. That doesn't mean everything will be changed just for the sake of it, and some units may end up almost identical to now, or with fairly minor changes. I think the book needs a more complete rework though, as I think it's the only way we'll really deal with the RPS problems and the avoidance-shooting-guerrilla combat tug'o'war. I don't think we need a lot of new units though, there is room for one or two, but…

  • Quote from lawgnome: “How about this: Building flames: To Cast: 8+ (or whatever) Range: 24" Choose a spot within LOS and range. All units within 1+Y" take 2d6 flaming hits at Str 1+Y, where Y = the game turn. At the beginning of the game (when units are grouped up), the spell doesn't hit very hard and can be used to try to clear chaff. By the end of the game, it can be used to clear out that last stubborn unit that has been evading the ID's attempts at killing them. It plays into the arrogance o…

  • Quote from DanT: “Keep going guys I think there are still intra- and inter-post contradictions and tensions, but it is really interesting to see people trying to articulate these things. It would be nice to see even more of these ironed out. (For my own part, I think I'm a weird case, which is why I'm not saying much. I found the designs in new ID generally pretty fluff-driven, so a lot of it seemed super simple and easy to remember for me. And I also knew the previous ID book really well, which…

  • Quote from lawgnome: “Where do you draw the limit on what is considered too much to think about? Pulling an example from my favorite army, OK, we have this for rules from the simplest of core units: Tribesmen: Scrapling Lookout Scoring Light Armor Sons of the Avalanche Paired Weapons Iron Fist Almost half of this model consists of army specific rules. And of those army specific rules, one completely breaks a core rule (3 models instead of 5 before you can target a character), one consists of 3 s…

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Read the sentence before - and please do state your own opinion ” Sorry, maybe I'm being slow, I had a looooong day at work. Which sentence?

  • I realize that not everyone loves spells like this as much as I do, but here goes. Burning bravery. Universal spell, until the caster's next magic phase, target gains fearless, and all attacks made by them gain flaming attacks. Cast the spell on your unit to protect them from panic tests and fear and give them flaming attacks to take advantage of those tokens. Cast it on an enemy unit you just charged and get that tasty 5+ aegis. Cast it on an enemy unit you've lined up a charge on, and watch yo…

  • Quote from Chronocide: “Strictly speaking, the FdE cannot move at full speed sideways. It moves at half speed sideways. It can wheel for free, move forward at full speed, and then wheel again, which may create the effect of moving sideways at full speed, but the two are technically different. ” Got to start writing these down for when the SE turn for a LAB comes. It'll be great being able to explain away every possible concern about proposals furthering avoidance, and get pathfinders priced for …

  • Quote from panterq: “Somehow Scoring keyword on Stubborn models makes me uneasy. ” Why? There are already a lot of stubborn, supernal and undead scoring units, and most scoring infantry have at least moderate potential to be steadfast. Quote from GarrethSw: “Interesting topic, it contains many arguments I already heard facing my regular opponents (especially the trash core/monsters dichotomy, a classic). While I think the counter triangle works more or less (Monsters > Infantry > Cavalry > Monst…

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Significant props to Cariadoc Thorne for actually saying "I think they mean cognitive load, not the actual numbers of special rules". Possibly the single most useful piece of feedback anyone has ever given on the ID book. ” In fairness, I might be wrong. I'm basing that off a lot of reading between the lines and comparing comments from the same people before and after the patch.

  • Quote from AEnoriel: “Hi everybody, My girlfriend (who paints our minis and owns our sylvan army) would be very grateful if you could add a very fast RABBIT chariot like the well-known brown one. I'm not sure it could do a lot of damage with its Impact hits but that would look ssooooo COOL !! She loves you all. ” I've often thought some kind of caster chariot would be cool, with the mage riding it using treesinging to open paths through the forest.

  • Quote from Falco: “Act. when I want to create good lists I tend to spam two blocks of rangers and one of dryads which are the unique things no overcosted in the book.. We have too much dmg output but not enough so you need numbers or in second round you are dead It’s really sad to me that game forces you to play with two-three blocks of 24-26 because is not sylvan game at all. BD, great elk prince, wild hunters, kestrels, pathfinders or sentinels everything compared with other books is overprice…

  • I think the issue people have with ID and special rules is not the number of rules, but the complexity of them, or perhaps the cognitive load, is a better way of saying it. Something like Sylvan Blades is not much to remember, it's just paired weapons with +1AP. Something like Sylvan Longbows is a bit more complex, with +1AP being easy, but then there's the+1S at short range. Now opponents have to not just remember a simple bonus, but also consider which units are or could soon be in which range…

  • Quote from Adam: “I would debate that - to engage with more mobile enemy you need threat projection and/or boar space. Typical sources of threat projection is either charge range or ranged damage but also (although this is rarely noticed) scoring. If you have infantry block sitting on the center in hold the ground you cannot just leave it alone with your mobile single models or you are loosing 6 VPs for that, this is a similar situation to playing against a gunline where sitting back is not an o…

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “Stuff like Treefathers being able to score but only making one pivot during a march would be perfect. ” You honestly do not see the consequences of your proposal for the game as a rank and file wargame? ” What? R&F no longer being essential for scoring? That's exactly the idea. R&F being needed for scoring is one of the things holding them back from being viable as actual combat units. If more non-R&F units could score, people wouldn…