Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 724.

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 Ironclad: “The idea was to replace shieldwall, and it is essential to have AP halved because we don’t have any problems with protection from strength 3-4 attacks but against high strength attacks st 6 ap 3 our supposedly tough guys with heavy armor dies just as quickly as goblins. This will also work against impact hits and stomps. That is one reason that seekers are dominant, they at least have a real wardsave so they survive as good or better then our other troops and can hit back. …

  • Well, the static anvil has a round base, I'd rather not have to change it.

  • Let's not invalidate models. If there is an anvil on war plataform, the static anvil must still exist

  • @Dain_II That's right, it's actually much easier than it looks but it's a very long text because I added my impressions, previous ideas and thoughts of the design so that you would understand the decisions. I will summarize it like this: It's a normal magic phase but the energy dice are 1d3+1, the tokens are changed to dice in a ratio of 2:1 The maximum roll is 4 dice. Blacksmiths have the same levels as wizards, only they can choose any rune. END. Now, he was lacking in fun so I thought that al…

  • Well, there goes my idea of a magic DH phase, it's still in a premature phase, I could put more layers of complexity and flavor but for now I'll keep it simple. I base it on the following points: Soft magic. Runic energy dice do not achieve as high rolls as regular energy dice. Reliability. All spells are successful in the usual way, as they have been so far. Fun. Changing tokens, choosing dice, etc. A normal magic phase. We're in business. The DH magic phase would be like a normal magic phase w…

  • @Dain_II The pages with unit options or enchantments is not something that scares the project, in fact it is the normal in army books, but there is no precedent of pages with severe changes in the game in an army book, so it should be as short as possible.

  • @Dain_II I like your approach, the hammer and anvil rune is a great idea. It's true that there are complicated things, you have to think that you are modifying a phase of the game and you have to explain it in the DH book, it has to be as short and simple as possible or it's not worth it as an idea, both because it's complicated for the opponents and because it's long for the book, we don't want to have a whole page or two of pure magic text. Try to take the complexity out of it and reduce the t…

  • ID General Chat

    xaby86 - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)


    What if I had 360 vision to shoot when the unit is charged?

  • Grumbling on new ID book

    xaby86 - - Dwarven Holds (DH)


    Well, I think the scissors have cut a little too far. There were things that needed adjusting and they've had them but I think they've cut too much creativity. For example the H, was a good spell and very cheap for its potential damage, but from there to what they have put now there is a world of difference, I think putting it at 9+ or even a rule that if the unit has more than 20 models its difficulty increases by 1 or that it only affects the models within its radius and not the whole unit wou…

  • I've been thinking about a different magic phase for DH for quite some time, but I always end up discarding ideas. Sometimes it's something OP, sometimes UP, sometimes based on magic cards, sometimes on tokens, sometimes dispersion is not enough (because you also have to think about the opponent). And then I try to divide the magic into concepts to see it separately, like the one that takes apart a machine to understand the pieces. And I wonder, what's the fun in that? It has always been said th…

  • Haha well, yes and no. You're right but that's not what I meant. I was thinking more of a very old guy with a gray beard who's already lost his life partners. A premium grey beard. A kind of Thane that comes from Special with different rules. I don't know about you, but I have a lot of painted characters that I would like to use and in the end I only use the usual 3 or 4. I think it would be cool to put the models of White Dwarf and other similar ones.

  • The Warhammer 40k space wolves have or had a veteran marine who had been left alone in battle, all his companions had died and he had become very tough and feisty. I like this concept. What do you think? A guy who can't join units, armored, angry, lots of weapons. Maybe the concept overlaps a bit with Seekers but I find it very appealing.

  • I've never found the information you get from tournaments to be very reliable, especially when it comes to teams. Lists are sacrificed so as not to have big defeats and lists are made with other specific lists in mind. It feels weird in my mind. I would see it more appropriate if the teams were pure, for example a DH team, with 4 different DH armies, etc. I think I could provide more enlightening data, see which lists or styles of play work best, see trends in wins or losses. Etc.

  • I like FC the way it is. If I had to change anything, it would be about impacts. My opinion is that the 1d6 in the front rank should affect the lone bases completely, like a small fireball, but I'm afraid that's a change in the rules and can't be changed. So, for LAB I would like to have more runes for WM, and well, maybe there could be a rune to give it more range, why not? I don't think I'll use it but the designer team will decide if it's necessary

  • Well, I didn't mean anything like that, in fact I'm trying to be generic and think of Guidelines, not concrete rules. I'm talking about something like that: "DH are expert stone carvers, digging their bastions in the heart of the mountain. To defend such precious places, they fortify small strategic areas or carve frightening statues of heroes and gods, which are inscribed with runes of hatred and revenge on the enemies. With a paragraph like this, designers could make anything out of stone, fro…

  • I would make the GB rule make the Dis rolls minimized, combine well with general and BSB. That said, we're not in the brainstorming thread. This is the Guidelines thread. Do you think there's a place in the Guidelines to talk about stone work? I mean, I think we could open a paragraph to give the possibility to display scenery elements, like the ID wall, for example some kind of giant sculpture that gives an aura buff or something. What do you think?

  • I'm not a big fan of cavalry mentions, but I like the rest of it very much. Unfortunately I don't have the computer to modify the original text and the mobile phone goes a bit crazy when there are such long texts to edit so I plan to get back to this in the autumn. This is really good, it's a good job and we can cut some sentences or whole paragraphs if people agree

  • Quote from Dain_II: “Watcha Lads! I've been really enjoying all the LAB discussions. Some really great ideas for when we eventually get our LAB (at which point, I look forward to them all being hashed out again!) But I was inspired by @xaby86s OG post on an army wide design guide. So I've been working on one of my own in my spare time. A huge thanks to @xaby86 for his original post and all credit to him for not just inspiring this but also for giving me a template to lift and edit. If my Student…

  • Quote from berti: “Allow seekers magic banner. Remove vanguard Add 0 to 3 to the vanguard banner. Limit seekers to 2 or 3 units and max 20 or 25 models per unit. A total of 50 to 60 at most. Plus venegance seeker and dragon seeker. Rest as current rules. Perhaps some point adjustment. Suddenly also the deep watch and kings guard can vanguard and not just 1 unit plus seekers. This would be my take on seekers. Just a nerf on total number and the ability to vanguard other units. I also don't like U…

  • Great. They look like very peculiar goblins, I think it's worth taking some pictures of them. I'm very curious to see them from other angles.