Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 863.

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.

  • Dudas T9A

    Arturiki - - Spain


    Paras a 1" del terreno, si no recuerdo mal.

  • Overrated: - Creepers. They have a huge footprint but barely do anything (at least the time I tried). Underrated: - Grotlings: As you said in the first post, they are a wonder. First time I used them it was 2x 6 grotlings (132pts/unit) and they will keep many units busy. Bad thing about using 6 is that they take a lot of space. Must be careful when you and the opponent have many vanguarding units.

  • I've watched too many movies where characters fight surrounded by mere minions. So I think they rules with duels still can apply.

  • I think most suggestions involve one or more of these: 1. Dis 6/7/8. 2. DS 2/3/4. 3. OS 3/4/5. 4. Str 3/4/5. 5. Agi 4/3/2 or 3/2/1. 6. AP 0/1/2. 7. Armour None or aegis (6+)/Light with access to heavy/heavy with access to plate. 8. Devastating charge with several elements that pass as regular rule.

  • It's that it was alright or not, is about adapting the unit to the background. Devil's advocate, there wasn't any background in T9A to support or not spears. I am not either in favour or against spears, but I feel primitive weapons could be skipped and focus on common orcs/orc troopers.

  • Quote from Pellegrim: “Inserted @arwaker proposal for young Orcs in the table. The table seems to have a small minds of its own, and adds spaces when you update ... ” Yep, I recommend you preview before submitting and adapt accordingly.

  • Quote: “12.D.d Reform When performing a Reform: 1. Mark the Centre of the unit. 2. Remove the unit from the Battlefield, and then place it back on the Battlefield in any legal formation and facing any direction (following the Unit Spacing rule), with its Centre in the sameplace as before. ” After the reform it cannot be touching the enemy units due to unit spacing, right? I don't know how feasible is to touch both units at the same time after that.

  • Last poll is 1 choice only.

  • Might be right, just slightly better. I prefer the modification by Gingersmali, with frenzy and fearless, and well, the other modifications too. It would be really cool if someone from the design team (or that have more kowledge of balance and so) gave their opinion on these. By the way, I would have no remorse on removing 'eadbashers, and many of the proposals have been without them.

  • 15 with strength 5 and AP 2, right? I mean, yes... I am not a design and balance expert so to be fair, I don't know whether your proposal is very crazy, slightly off or right in place.

  • Feral with paired weapons and savage fury (2) would be 4 attacks. Common with paired weapons and savage fury (1) would be 3 attacks. 3 and 4 were accounting for both units.

  • I have to say that paired weapons and savage fury gives 3 and 4 attacks per model. That's sick. If that's not overpowered, I don't know what. The rest is ok.

  • Same thoughts. I would make common orcs slightly different instead. Edit: I'd rather spend that "complexity" on other of the rules we have discussed in Rules for Common Orcs.

  • Supposing the remaining one "is fearful", it shouldn't have any effect, since fearless only passes panic tests when it's more than half the models.

  • Oh damn, I thought this was Rules for Common Orcs ?.

  • Quote from Gingersmali: “ORCS TROOPERS ” Ja! I see what you did there. Quote from Gingersmali: “(Hidden Content) ” I am not so fan of giving basically the same weaponry to ferals and troopers. I am alright with paired weapons, spears, bows and I could manage shields. Halberd as a powerful close combat weapon to troopers seems great to make them different to ferals. Crossbows as you suggest I would keep only for common (and I like that iron orcs can also take them). Something I am also not that f…

  • Quote from Shlagrabak: “If anything could to be made further clear it is when exactly are you still modifying the entry profiles and when are they already discarded for the model profile. ” I guess there is no "when", since every modification from special items, spells, rules happening in every phase and turn would have to "generate" a new model profile.

  • Daeb Hereditary Spell

    Arturiki - - Dread Elves (DE)


    Quote from echoCTRL: “This thread holds the answer. ” Would you mind quoting it? Or were you "making a joke" of "it's something in the thread, but I cannot/won't tell you why"?

  • Quote from Eisenheinrich: “Nowhere in the rules do we state that the rider loses his profiles - you just don't use them for the multipart model. So you do modify the rider's resilience, which however is irrelevant for the multipart model's profiles. ” This is the only thing that doesn't convince me completely... as I would/could argue that the multi-part model has only a single set of global and defensive profiles. If he doesn't lose his profiles, there are more profiles on the multi-part model …

  • Quote from Gingersmali: “a) this model part has AP -1 to a minimum of 0, b) after weapon modifiers this model part can never have AP larger than 0. c) after weapon modifiers this model part can never have AP larger than 1. ” By b) the AP will always be 0. Plus, I think AP is always a minimum of 0 (I would need to check), so you could skip b) and leave a) for clarification and c) for limits. Actually you could combine a) and c): this model part suffers -1 AP and after weapon modifiers must have A…