Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 1,000. There are more results available, please enhance your search parameters.

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 JimMorr: “Columns bend when they wheel. All ranks follow the first one. If column is deep enough that causes delay as rear ranks need to wait for front ones to move on. ” If T9A columns happen to move differently to a napoleonic game system then that’s not necessarily a negative thing. I wouldn’t expect either system to have it perfectly right in all honesty. It’d be too fiddly. It’s probably a good thing that your immersion is tagged to the napoleonic as that game relies on immersion…

  • Quote from JimMorr: “To be constructive: let's try to identify some abuses and check if the rule can be made abuse-free and how costly it would be. The first one is connected with abuse of a conga as a pivoting screen. Hence adding "min 5 wide" is probably a must... the-ninth-age.com/community/in…7f9b52361979580a337d6c61f ” Hey mate, can you walk me through it? Is the red one screening the others from charges to the right? The black conga screening the others from shooting? I’m not really gettin…

  • Quote from Bogi: “The rule will hardly ever come into play unless it is being abused and it has to have a lot of caveats such as "min 5 wide" and who knows how many more that will be needed to stop it being abused. It also does sound like designed by a kid who is wishlisting. ” if this is ultimately the case then I’m sure the rule will get punted from the book. As many have pointed out they have not previously had issues with this type of movement due to superior skill. In which case playtesting…

  • The problem was that in his first three posts it was very obvious that he hadn’t bothered to read the actual rule nor the disclaimer. Essentially they were hot-takes without thought with heavy amounts of negativity and included insults to the LAB team. His fourth and most recent post was a grumble about which rule was spoilered with additional insults. The most useful feedback he has had to date is that he is worried that this rule may take up space/complexity which may otherwise have been used …

  • ignore him as a troll... reading his last two posts it reads as someone with an axe to grind rather than anything actually useful to contribute.

  • I would be in favour of removing the 777 sucked into the void. I can see how it would be unfun regardless of how fluffy it is. Of course I’d be expecting to increase every caster’s cost by 100+ points also as then there really isn’t any reason to keep miscasts in the game after the void is gone. I do like what magic brings to the game. I’d just prefer it to be priced properly and for an army to be viable without it.

  • Quote from Fthunder: “The intent is for both units to take the hits as they trample over each other and small fights/disagreements break out between the two units. In the crush of battle, a Vermin soldier may spy someone he has a score to settle with and "accidentally" slip his dagger into their side as he runs past! ” super fluffy!

  • I wonder about removing the Ancient in favour of an AoN manifestation. Maybe make the AoN 0-2 but the manifestations 0-1.

  • I don’t mind it. It feels like we’re making an official rule out of something a good number of casual gaming clubs have as a “nothing to see here” part of moving long buses. Question: is the intent for just the moving unit to take the hits for each rank or for both the moving unit and the unit that is moved over? At the end of the move, any unit that had its Unit Boundary overlap with another unit suffers one hit for each Rank it has. Hits are resolved with Strength 3 and Armour Penetration 0.

  • I too am in the camp of “get rid of comet” or perhaps “restrict comet to be less devastating” would be more accurate. I don’t like that it can cover a big chunk of the board nor that it can effectively render a chunk of an army combat inefficient. That is an unfun game imo. Smaller diameter, maybe D3S instead of D6s, would be good. I also feel magic has little to no miscast risk involved in the current ruleset as the chance of misfire is really really really low and the vast majority of outcomes…

  • If it helps at all, I played EoS for the first time two years ago. I found them quite complex to keep on top of due to the various orders and inter-unit relationships. Haven’t played them since and count it as a blessing. As a general rule I don’t like other units being able to react when not being directly interacted with. The HBE Seaguard stand and shoot is like that. Being shot with 30 bows when you aren’t even charging the unit is so abusable it’s not funny.

  • Quote from Arrahed: “ Overall I would remove Sylvan Lance and Sylvan Blades completely. With the exception of Forest Guard, both options can be approximated reasonably well with the AP attribute in each unit's profile or replacing Sylvan Lances with regular Lances. Sylvan Lances are better at grinding, but if balanced accordingly, I don't see that as a substantial problem. SE elves are not supposed to be good at grinding anyways. ” and this removes the flavour... I like our Sylvan Lances / Blade…

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “No special rule overlap. When ASAW was the big thing, Sturdy didn't fit their ASAW and so ID removed it in 2.0 as sort of a dry run on the LAB - and they've never had Grudges or Shield Wall, which are the other two DH AWSR. It's not that dwarves are more dissimilar than elves, just... there isn't really a dwarf AWSR. We discussed creating one. The best I've personally seen was a proposal to make Fight in Extra Rank the Dwarf AWSR going forwards, which was not implemente…

  • What he did to The Hobbit was pretty bad in its entirety imo.

  • I don’t ever really play against ID so have steered clear of the debate / feedback entirely. I do have a question about the number of rules in ID which cross over into DH (and vide versa)? I’m assuming there are a few as both are Dwarves but not sure if the fluff has them that closely aligned? the reason I ask is that this inherently reduces complexity as a player can think about the race and know a lot about the unit entry. Eg. I’m against and elf, therefore it has lightening reflexes.

  • Age of Single models?

    Fleshbeast - - General Discussion

    Post

    If rye secondary was 1 point instead of 3 that would probably change the feeling of the game back to being about the battle rather than the mission. Not a bad change imo.

  • Yep, feels ripe for a manifestations mechanic when we get to LAB.

  • Quote from Giladis: “Quote from Peacemaker: “Giladis, you are not explaining this very well at all in regards to the Avatar of Nature. ” What I am trying to say is: All Avatars of Nature are Sylvan Spirits, but not all Sylvan Spirits are arboreal in nature. Quote from Arrahed: “Not even mentioning crush attack and impaling roots. ” It is interesting to read the above because we never indicated the roots in the "impaling roots" belong or must belong to the creature ” If the roots are not theirs t…

  • Age of Single models?

    Fleshbeast - - General Discussion

    Post

    I’ll cross the ditch and bring a bit of grey to your lives then...

  • Age of Single models?

    Fleshbeast - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Mmmm. I think "boost the eliteness of core" is more on point; same cost, more bang for your buck, so you don't need to paint three extra regiment boxes, but if you want to you can run them out of non-core points and not lose. ” I dunno. There is already a feeling that elite troops can one-shot entire units. I’m not super keen on a “who charges wins” mentality.