Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 703.

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.

  • ID General Chat

    Jomppexx - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Random thought on the infernal bastion: What if it were changed to have a crew of say 6-8 dwarves with flintlock axes or blunderbusses, maybe an option between them. The prophet potentially on it would get 360 LOS, same with the shooting weapon equipped crew. It keeps the same feel but makes it much more toned down as now it's not 20 shots anymore. Also makes joining it to immortals or melee focused units a realistic option.

  • You probably know this already but I want the old rule back

  • I'm not sure about the 3v4 ppm for gw. Just a hunch feel that they feel a bit expensive. I have built a list with a unit of 30 pondering how they would work, have to still test them some day. I would like to see the shields retained... 3+ vs shooting would be nice

  • I would agree with Wombat and say that GW for IG should cost 3 ppm instead of 4. IG are mostly used with HW+Shield anyway right now so there must be a reason. Dropping the cost of GW could help but I have an alternative theory. The good targets for GW are heavy armor or high resilience, yes? High resilience is mostly monsters where EoS generally has better alternatives that don't involve risking characters and your units. Those are divination, steam tank and artillery. So the GW option is not re…

  • Yes a shame about the locket really, I also think it's a bit expensive. It really depends on the match-up and the meta a lot. If you constantly face ogres/WDG/SA/VC it's obviously amazing. This can be almost guaranteed in a team tournament... If you take it without knowing your opponent it can be wasted or poorly used points quite easily. Against all elves, VS, other Empire armies and such it's nearly useless.

  • Quote from Fthunder: “Quote from Loghaire: “In my circles, a local meta has been going on for a while, that focusses on quite a lot of big units. We (at least some of us) play like this because we like to see real armies on the table and also because we play factions, that allow for it (VS, VC and Goblins). Something that often happens is, that due to terrain minimizing the available space for armies like this, to be fielded properly, you kinda have to squeeze certain big blocks too close togeth…

  • I don't understand what this rule does at all. Like I read it twice and cannot understand what it means. Units can move through Standard Infantry friendlies, but their Front Facing can never go on top and they will take S3 AP0 hits depending on their amount of ranks...? Very weird and I don't really get.

  • Quote from Ehakir: “Though you are light troops, so that doesn't work unfortunately. Nice to see quite some variety in the lists and IMO nice to see that the traditional gunline doesnt perform too well. Seems like reiters are highly popular in general. ” Electoral cav are not light troops Reiters being popular is not surprising in my opinion. Really good unit in small chaff units or bigger firing units.

  • Quote from wombat: “Err, didn't anybody get the memo about using Electoral Knights and Reiter's in units of 6 ? On many occasions they are my MVP. I know 13th out of 16 sounds bad but an average of 9.366 per game in a team tourney is not that bad tbh. Also 3 lists without a STank is a góod sign as obviously not an Auto Include. Even an unit of Reiter's with Lgt Lance and Shield made an appearance !!! ” Why units of 6 though? I can see a unit of 6 with a champion being smart though. You can feed …

  • Maybe a grind but well worth it! What flaws exactly are supposed to be clearer? Still love the blue/snow theme for sylvans.

  • I could still see the hereditary playing around with tokens. Like give a unit incendiary, if they already have a token do something else. Boosted give the unit a token AND do the follow-up part.

  • Age of Single models?

    Jomppexx - - General Discussion

    Post

    Thanks for summing up definitely something to think about. I still wonder, if we want to keep core minimum % then how does removing the core tax work? Just make core cheaper? Why are core units as cheap as they could be right now? Sorry I have a bit of a flu so I'm a bit stuffed Edit: Ah it's about seeing armies with more core than the absolute minimum... I don't know if pricing can fix this. There is a theory still about output per frontage. Adding more and more models to units does not necessa…

  • Age of Single models?

    Jomppexx - - General Discussion

    Post

    What sort of action do you reckon we (ACS) should do to start deconstructing core tax? And what would the game look like without it, how would it be different?

  • So -1OS/DS if the enemy has an incendiary token if you don't boost the spell? Bad design as quite often nothing will happen and rot within is the same with no situational part.

  • ID General Chat

    Jomppexx - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from lawgnome: “A percent cap also makes it harder to balance by points. "This artillery piece is not performing as something this price should. However, if we drop it any further, people would be able to fit an extra artillery piece under the limit, which would be too overwhelming. Guess it has to stay too expensive." I like the current implementation. ” Point balancing is hard in this way yes. There is a fundamental issue with any limits. Look at the limit on sylvan bows. With a 0-X limi…

  • Quote from Masamune88: “Quote from Jomppexx: “Quote from Masamune88: “Quote from DanT: “"The flames of anger and contempt" 5+. Replicable. 18" augment. Permanent. 1 instance: flaming attacks 2 instances: flaming attacks and stubborn 3+ instances: flaming attacks, stubborn and battlefocus. ” I like this, as much as i tend to hate the idea of permanent spells, this one seems much aligned. ID get progressively angrier and mount up to an incandescent rage as the battle goes on.Actually captures wher…

  • I didn't get the kadim bindings -> shieldbearer thing. I also think unflame is the lamest enchantment/artifact name. It's like "no-fire" which is very uninspired. Triple speed is not so offensive, describes it well if a bit uninspired.

  • Quote from Masamune88: “Quote from DanT: “"The flames of anger and contempt" 5+. Replicable. 18" augment. Permanent. 1 instance: flaming attacks 2 instances: flaming attacks and stubborn 3+ instances: flaming attacks, stubborn and battlefocus. ” I like this, as much as i tend to hate the idea of permanent spells, this one seems much aligned. ID get progressively angrier and mount up to an incandescent rage as the battle goes on. Actually captures where i wanted to go quite well, my bias is again…

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Quote from Chronocide: “Quote from Elpeji: “That's a topic about hereditary no?! ” We're kinda off topic. You were complaining about ID dwarves being really slow and I didn't think that was a fair assessment. You [ID] aren't fastest army, but you've got options and you have quite a bit of durability. And I don't think comparing to EoS is fair.So back to the topic of hereditary spells, should be something that doesn't directly boost your shooting, make you more durable, …

  • Quote from DanT: “"Attach Kadims" Target unit and all units in base contact with it gain flaming attacks. Can't be cast on units with supernal. It's a bit silly, and needs some work. But it isn't miles from working. ” I think this universal flaming attacks thing is an amazing idea. Should be developed further definitely.