Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 903.

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.

  • A list I've been playing AFTER the nerfs probably didn't change playability-wise mysteriously. Opponents wising up to how it works sounds reasonable, though.

  • Hmm. I think I need to take a step back from my Barrow testing and do something else for a change. After losing my last match, I got to thinking and decided to count up my scores from each iteration of the list I've been playing, and realized something really dumb - My points have gone down in each iteration of the list beyond the first. I've been making it worse all this time! Or just playing it worse, either or. At any rate, I think I'll try my hand at a double Ark list for a bit.

  • Were these 3d print schematics, not models? Never have I been so disappointed to live in the middle of nowhere without access to the tech. I'll have to look into visiting helsinki...

  • And I agree on that - UD has been brewing towards this point for a long while, and that's largely due to poor decisions made on what to focus on with design. Makes solving the situation fairly hard with just point cost changes.

  • Take it into PM's before stuff escalates into a flame war. I've mentioned it before, but I believe the center of the problem isn't in efficiency, but in army feel. The soul of the army has taken a big hit, and while the power has notably dropped, it's not really the lack of power that's felt in games, but a lack of heart. The army doesn't play like it should. A lot of stuff causes that, not just the heal nerf. It's an issue that has been building for a while and has now come to a head.

  • Quote from Gym Shorts: “I predict 0 UD at ETC 2021, but I also don't predict an ETC 2021 happening : ) ” If it does happen, your prediction will be wrong, as I'll be there, upholding my questionable honor.

  • Well, is someone holding a gun up to your head and demanding that you play those two Colossi and two Giants, @wombat? Blink twice for 'yes', once for 'no'. And if not, what's it matter to you what other players bring to the table? That said - I don't really like the fact that more single model options are opened for armies when the game is already badly skewed towards single model abuse in the current ruleset, and the giant aux helps none with that issue. Yet, it exists and will continue existin…

  • That is indeed a rather large oversight! It will need to be fixed asap.

  • Giants second edition

    Palmu - - General Discussion

    Post

    Understandable. But, yeah, given the time period we're living in, there wasn't really a chance to see the auxiliary tested in official capacity, but neither did we believe most tournament orgs would allow it anyway given how haphazardly balanced the auxiliary was to begin with. As such we had to rely on internal playtesting and word of mouth for this version, which will hopefully be more approachable as both a tourney inclusion, though not that many will be hosted anyway, in the current climate,…

  • DE Giant Feedback forum

    Palmu - - Dread Elves (DE)

    Post

    ...Yes? Have they ever claimed to be something else?

  • Giants second edition

    Palmu - - General Discussion

    Post

    @Danrakh Yes, at least I, and chunks of our playtester base, have. We've taken in both theoretical and game-based feedback for this update. Chalking issues of balance and army feel to 'it's just an auxiliary' also isn't an option, it simply leads to resentment against the ideas behind them and makes their use in official capacity all the morw difficult @Pellegrim currently it is so, yeah. It's my hope to bring the Giants out of that slump.

  • DE Giant Feedback forum

    Palmu - - Dread Elves (DE)

    Post

    Aye, that isn't possible, simply because Auxiliaries also test other methods of gameplay. The extra magic options or magic cards don't really play nice with the core options, as a good example. Similarly, the giant auxiliary splits players into different camps - Enough players straight up hate them that trying to make them a core part of armies would not only be a disaster balance-wise but player-wise. And splitting auxiliaries further into 'official auxiliaries' and 'non-official auxiliaries' w…

  • Giants second edition

    Palmu - - General Discussion

    Post

    @Shukran That wholly depends on the teams working on the eventual LAB's, of course. If the eventual EoS team thinks the book should have a Giant and the background agrees, then a Giant they will have. But given how polarizing the inclusion of Giants in general is - No, they will not be a part of the core rules of all armies, and will largely remain in their own auxiliary to show situations that CAN happen in the T9A world, but are not common.

  • DE Giant Feedback forum

    Palmu - - Dread Elves (DE)

    Post

    Given the size of the teams, these are not mutually exclusive methods. Too many cooks spoil the soup and all that. Though, I'm unsure what you mean exactly, when referring to something as official. Do you mean 'part of the core ruleset, enforced to be used in a match?' Because that would be a poor idea.

  • Giants second edition

    Palmu - - General Discussion

    Post

    Well, if a directly comparable unit from the main armybook is better, then I'd say it's a good thing. Like I said, auxiliary options should be more a matter of taste than being better than what you can get from the actual armybook. But, they SHOULD still be a choice, instead of an automatic pass. So if you're correct and the Giant is straight up useless, then it will likely see some changes to it in the next update, to bring it more in line. Given that the update happened hours ago and was actua…

  • DE Giant Feedback forum

    Palmu - - Dread Elves (DE)

    Post

    They are and always have been, being a part of the T9A world - What they are *not*, is part of the core rules designed with competitive balance in mind. So it'll always be up to players and tourney hosts to decide what they wish to use and what they don't.

  • Giants second edition

    Palmu - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Eldan: “Not sure I Like the cultist giant now being a possessed giant. Takes away the giant's agency, makes him just a tool for a demon, instead of an intelligent creature that can fall like any other. ” While possession has hardly been actually elaborated on fluffwise, mostly because of how little background auxiliaries get, T9A daemonic possession is very much a conscious choice on part of the possessed, a daemon can't step in without being welcomed. The Giant has made the choice to…

  • Quote from Drakkanor: “To get 7 skellys back we have to mess up the magic phase... is not that a price already? ” One can make an argument about that in both ways, which alone is enough to not count as an issue critical enough for changes. That said, I do believe that the increased CV is too much as far as it pertains to skeletal units. It might be fair when it comes to the more powerful statues, but certainly feels iffy when it comes to the units that actually need it the most.

  • Because they come back, @Drakkanor. The resurrection tax at work. That said, NG in smaller than minimum are badly overcosted even with the price cut they received last patch, though this can honestly be said about all non-core elite infantry in the game.

  • Currently design changes are made only if it is believed that the wanted change will not result from points changes alone, and given the general state of the books internal balance I'm not completely sold on points not being enough at this time.