Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 194.

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 WhammeWhamme: “Yes, that has been considered. The main available options are in fact that model, minimum unit size something enormous, or proximity buffs. Of the three, and based on replies here to date, people seem to prefer proximity buffs. ” Could it be because none of us were made aware of that third option? I know I wasn't, and like to think that I absorb every little morsel of text put in this little corner of the forums.

  • Hobgoblin auxiliary book

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Spahbed Squarepants

  • I lean a bit more to the tarpit slaves than the supporty ones. It feels weird to have a big unit of slaves on the field to only do support stuff and not supposedly fight the enemy. I'd think one would form the big blocks of slaves to be the ones who can fight, and have the utility slaves just sprinkled (abstracted) where needed. Has a rule like Lugars now have been thought for the slaves? Like "you decided to bring your lot of slaves. Round up all the fighters to form a unit and have the not so …

  • Quote from Kriegschmidt: “The squeaky wheel is getting the most grease. Just ignore the squeaking. ” Should have its bearings changed, though.

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from JamesMcDonnell: “Interesting discussions about the bastion over the past few posts. I think I have to agree that it doesn’t really seem right. It’s not needed in the book and just seems to create more issues with making it fit and work than it’s worth. At no point playing the slim book did I think “wow what I need now is a troop transport/siege tower”. ” Pretty much the only things that were going through my head when playing with the old slim book were "dang, if only I had a war plat…

  • I could see VS doing something similar with their toxins that ID did with their flammable. Take something binary (ap10) and make it more malleable and nuanced.

  • I don't even know what devastating is anymore. Is it all about strength? Wasn't the S3 double hit devastating against elves? Do the guidelines have to be followed that literally? Don't the guidelines also say that ID shooting should be mobile, yet some of our artillery can't move at all? I'm all the way for making a fantasy shotgun, but also though the S3 double hit was pretty good representation for it too... the-ninth-age.com/community/in…57dfb29bfb23b799f978ad499

  • Quote from arwaker: “Quote from Jarec: “I think the area attack specifically was seen as a problem as its power did not diminish that much when its targets had cover or hard target. A version of the gun with just shots 2 might not have been a problem? ” This argument I can't follow, sorry.Statistically it makes no difference whether having 2 shots or 2 area. ” Makes it swingier, more high highs. Especially on the tougher-to-hit spots. But I think I'm with you. I like it more unpredictable. My ve…

  • I think the area attack specifically was seen as a problem as its power did not diminish that much when its targets had cover or hard target. A version of the gun with just shots 2 might not have been a problem?

  • BETA 3 ID Players concerns

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Yes, thank you!

  • Quote from WhammeWhamme: “I'm quite serious about having proposed cutting them all. If there are literally any you like, now would be a good time to speak up in their defense. ” My favorite things are, which are not just specifically special rules: New Prophet options, Taurukh heroes, pretty much all of the new items are the biggest winners in my book. These would be the ones I would be sad to see go. I also like the newest Lammasu. A rule that needs to be bothered only once per game, and I like…

  • My maybe biggest gripe with new ID is the Infernal Brand & Bound or Broken. It inherently has complexity by having a bunch of nested stuff in it and a triggering mechanism. But the bigger part, for me, than the complexity of it is just how it introduced a proximity game play that never was a thing with ID before. It just has this slight pungent smell of rising the skill floor just because the ceiling needs to be raised too. The same smell I've smelled with many other games, and don't like at all…

  • Impact-to-complexity: Let Them Come on Citadel Guard. Gives them a strong niche as being the shooty dwarfs and is kept really simple as they are just a core dwarfs. (And is one of the last straws to hang on to as a shooting focused player.)

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Does this game have a sorta inverse poison/lethal strike. As in every hit or wound that was scored with let say 4+ or lower (3+ and 2+) makes a different effect? I was thinking about BB's and how I still think some sort of poison would fit them, but also though that I'd be told that it's too swingy or something. If the poison would only score its effect if the hit was made with 2+, 3+ and 4+ so the enemy unit would get to act on it to disable it. Like ducking behind cover or just wildly swaying …

  • Ok, here's one dumb idea specifically for this iteration of the book. Remove the Shield option, and replace it with this: Ziggurat Irregulars: Universal Rule. The model gains Shield and has access to Banner Enchantments normally limited for core. Just to bump up a bit the measly sword&board Warriors. And hey, what if the BB would have the same treatment, with maybe 15 minimum size. With them not having access to shields they'd get some more range and/or offense back, since it would be a bit easi…

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from WhammeWhamme: “Beta 3 Blunderbusses are a weapon for blocks. Form up into ranks, rush towards the enemy, and if they move into your blind spot, reform and shoot them. Otherwise, engage them head on. ” Me, feeling that the reduced ranges really hurt this gun's usability, and you saying this makes them just too specific of a shooting weapon for me to be bothering with. Again, it just sounds more elven tactics to be running into blind spots to be able to shoot. Quote: “They "compete" wit…

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from Ciara: “Yea, every id player loved tower, when it was broken, right. ” Well, no. I would've not used any running-backwards shenanigans with it even if I'd realized that would be possible. It is just so uninspiring stylewise now.

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    They are really similar, and think that is a problem. As people have pointed out, the new BB is pretty much just S 4 AP 1,5 pistol. I think this will just lead to a spot where one of those units is marginally better and the other one will never be picked.

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from Villon: “Quote from Jarec: “Quote from Villon: “The new BB design, is shorter, because the team are searching to compete against pistols, is that the reason of 12" range, Str 5 Ap 3 (half of the hits) ” Do you know why this is a thing? Why try to compete against something we already have?What other, supposedly shooty army, has pistols as their mainstay core troop weapons? If anything, this just makes the Citadel Guard the go-to option for core shooting, leaving Warriors in dust yet ag…

  • ID General Chat

    Jarec - - Infernal Dwarves (ID)

    Post

    Quote from Villon: “The new BB design, is shorter, because the team are searching to compete against pistols, is that the reason of 12" range, Str 5 Ap 3 (half of the hits) ” Do you know why this is a thing? Why try to compete against something we already have? What other, supposedly shooty army, has pistols as their mainstay core troop weapons? If anything, this just makes the Citadel Guard the go-to option for core shooting, leaving Warriors in dust yet again.