Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 829.

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 vvalor: “-scoring wardancers (put it to max 2 units) ” Pretty sure this is not going to happen. Powers that be are very much against scoring light troops existing, and the SE design team for 2.0 wanted to remove it anyway, because BD are meant to be our ultra-elite combat unit, but when they had scoring they were used as avoidance scorers who rarely saw combat. Quote from Arrahed: “If also find that in the current, single-entity heavy meta SE mobility is not particularly unique or pow…

  • Ok, it was worth asking the question. It's easy to get used to something like relying on combat characters in a book which lacks other tools to do the same job, and then not even consider the possibilities to develop other tools and move away from that. Honestly, I am inclined towards thinking KoE need those combat characters, but you guys know the army far better than me, so I thought I'd ask.

  • Quote from Masamune88: “@CariadocThorne that moves towards generalship rather than heroicness which is probably more of an EoS thing than KoE thing thematically ” Depends on how far you take it. Having each virtue give a buff to the character and his unit, say something like Hatred (beast), or battle focus, or something like that shouldn't be stepping in any toes, EoS goes so much further. Either way, just an idle musing.

  • @Ludaman that brings up another important question related to eliteness. Do KoE actually need highly elite combat characters? Would characters who inspire the knights to fight better rather than being individual combat monsters better represent the knightly heroic ideal? Obviously a lot depends on what is done with the rest of the book, and whether there are targets the rest of the book struggle with, which characters might be the best solution to. I could see either way working.

  • @Marcos24 I agree with the idea of being able to customise KoE characters towards specialising against specific targets to some extent, and I think it is important that KoE has characters in who can deal with targets like this. I would be wary of very heavy specialization though. My comments about eliteness still stand though. Especially with charge related bonuses, and a moderate degree of specialisation, it doesn't take a character of equal eliteness to beat a chosen lord or a vampire combat l…

  • @Zwei I appreciate that some special rules certainly add complexity. However, does a rule like lightning reflexes or Fier really add much complexity? They certainly add a lot of depth, and as someone already pointed out, something like Fier could be replaced with +1A, but that actually makes a big difference to how the unit plays, by making smaller units better value, whereas Fier gives a similar effect, but pushes it towards slightly larger units. Alternatively, we could expand the statline, li…

  • Quote from Radian: “What are the differences between your wfb (named t9a due to copyright issues) and GW's one than?.......... (everything the "volounteers" are doing is great bc it's their free time! now be quiet and thank them they are ruining your race's fluff for no reason! ). ” It's not "our WFB" though. It is intended to be an entirely different game. The fluff isn't being ruined, as it doesn't exist yet (except for what the BGT have already written). Many of us are carrying over from GWs …

  • Perhaps if a unit of knights (not a character in the unit) kills a monster or character, one of the R&F models is upgraded to a champion.

  • Quote from Ludaman: “Well I for one am quite excited. There are some very cool background themes that have never been touched on in an army like this: Number one for me being, The Lady rewards Knights who follow a virtuous path with supernatural power and ability, however as most of us know getting ahead in the world (especially the medieval world) requires virtue that can be easily set aside in order to achieve your ambition. Finally getting a chance to see the fluff fleshed out between the fac…

  • @Peacemaker not entirely disagreeing with you, but I think the vast majority of units will hit a sweet spot before they get so cheap that they become auto-include. For example, Eagles are now starting to see some use in units, but are still not overly common. I wouldn't be surprised if they go down in cost just a bit more and become more common in units, but without being in every list or anything.

  • Quote from da_griech: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “A shooty DE list should not be as shooty as a HE or SE shooty list though. ” Quote from CariadocThorne: “But that's not what I said. I specifically said the DE shooty units should be just as good, but that they should be specialised to support the army's playstyle. ” Hum.” See the word in red? Quote from da_griech: “ On the other argument, that one can not build a good combat army with good combat units, I guess we just have a different opinion.…

  • Quote from da_griech: “So SE should be as hard hitting in combat as DE (if they want to field such list) but DE should not be as shooty as SE (if they want to field shooty lists)? I kind of suspect you play SE ” But that's not what I said. I specifically said the DE shooty units should be just as good, but that they should be specialised to support the army's playstyle. The SE in this scenario (and this is a hypothetical scenario, one which I'm very much against, as I would absolutely hate SE be…

  • Quote from da_griech: “So something like shooting caps should not be necessary for combat armies, as each army should be able to field a valid ranged List as well? Interesting thought... I guess opinions can differ on that. ” Not sure anyone said that. An army with no shooting cap would be able to make a shootier army, and the point is that the army as a whole should be able to be better at it's speciality. You have to seperate unit-level design from army-level design. A shooty DE unit should be…

  • Quote from da_griech: “So should all armies have about equally ranged competitive options as well? Or should their ranged options rather fit theit playstyle eg for DE support combat, clear chaff? ” Both? They should be designed to fit the playstyle, but they should be equally good. Let's say SE really do become the shooty elves. Sylvan archers and HE Citizen Archers are pretty similar, both fairly basic core longbow archers. Just because SE are (hypothetically) the shooty elves, Sylvan Archers s…

  • A lot of people seem not to realize quite how few S6+ or MW attacks SE have access to.

  • What SE currently lacks

    CariadocThorne - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Quote from Firthunands91: “And to the guy making the maths on Huntsmen, yeah, a unit of 350pts doing 2.5W on average to a 1+4++ Cowboy is a bad result. LOL. Do the maths with any other model to see if they come even close. ” That's 2.5W with double S buff. So a 350pt unit supported by at least 2 mages... (and how often do SE get 2 spells off in one turn, let alone 2 Strength buffs?) Now calculate that minotaur warlord and FDE with the best two buff spells available cast on them. With no buff WH …

  • What SE currently lacks

    CariadocThorne - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    @Firthunands91 I just want to reiterate this. It's not necessarily even about getting MORE tools to deal with single models (although I do think we could use a couple more), but rather about spreading the effective counters around the book a bit more, like making even a single shooty unit effective against them.

  • What SE currently lacks

    CariadocThorne - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Quote from Firthunands91: “Or Treefathers, or Kestrels, or Huntsmen. Let's try another time. Things that counter single model spam: Your own single models: Ancient, Avatar, non Character Tree father, Wild Hunter, Dragon. Check. Glass Cannon Cavalry: Huntsmen, Kestrels. Check. Easy access to High Strength and AP all around. Check. So yeah, you are basically lacking Warmachines and Sniping Spells. Yet you are one of the 6 armies with access to Dragons, and have plenty of AP all around and the doub…

  • What SE currently lacks

    CariadocThorne - - Sylvan Elves (SE)

    Post

    Quote from Firthunands91: “Yup SE shooting feels mostly overcosted. There are poor examples at what I said? Sure, and there are excellent ones, that are able to one-shot Monsters and Cowboys. There's no all around list in any book that is able to deal with single model spam. That's why such spam has become so popular, because it's really hard to counter unless specifically building against it. SE has, as others, their own tools. And they are quite valid. But again, I don't think that SE has a ha…

  • Quote from Firthunands91: “So it's not that you don't have the tools, but that you refuse to use them because they don't look as you want? ” No-one said that. Just that the tools we have kind of push us towards certain list types, and that we'd like to be able to play more varied lists while still being reasonably well equipped to deal with single model spam. And some of the stuff you mentioned is really poor at dealing with cowboys. Pathfinders for example may have AP3, but cost more than a lot…