Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 243.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • " Bloodgeyser, the one who put an end to the longest thread in The 9th Age" That´d be quite an achievement...except that it´d take a little bit more than that

  • Indeed is one of those complex situations that with practice you can better predict the outcome. Cases using your example: - You chose the unit to flee from Skinks and pursue only with skinks: by doing so, you guaranteed yourself that the skinks would stay put unless they rolled 8+ inches, as any shorter than that would overlap with warriors - You could have evaded this situation by either: - Making enemy flee from Warriors direction and Pursuit with Skinks - Making enemy flee from skinks and pu…

  • Quote from mclizard: “It feels weird to me to be able to shoot at a completely screened unit, especially for example, a 25 mm wizard hiding behind a unit of 40 mm monsters.. ” Minor clarification: none of the proposed options allows this. The only way to shoot that 25mm wizard in your example (with options B & D) is if 1 or more models in the shooting unit can see him. In your example, the wizard is fully hidden and can´t be seen (and therefore, can´t be shot at)

  • B > A > C > D

  • @piteglio I think it covers all bases, maybe even too many You may want to remove Option 2 though. You showed how it can be streamlined in Option 1, plus is same approach as followed in Sylvan Longbow. If the 5x2 configurations of shooters are the ones considered as the weakest performers, option (4) might be the least appropriate to propose. might even want to consider to drop this too, and just keep (1), (3), (5),(6)

  • @piteglio Your proposal is interesting. It helps in making these weapons a bit more consistent in damage once units start moving in the battlefield, so it can be a good measure if today they are felt in need of help balance-wise. Plus is very easy to implement even in basic rules as you showed You can consider to introduce this proposal as a first (and simple) step; test and evaluate the results. If good enough leave as is; else, if it is felt that LoS is main "blocking point" for the type of pl…

  • Quote from piteglio: “... can i ask for your opinion on what Volley Fire rewrite should we consider for inclusion in EW-Advanced? effects: (a) shoot from third rank (b) ignore cover from models restrictions: (1) if not moved (2) if in line formation (3) if can trace LoS to a target my preference would be for (b) only. ... ” tbh I had completely forgotten about the Line formation 3rd rank in this discussion! In all my above posts I was thinking on this implementation of Volley Fire (apologies tha…

  • Quote from Remy77077: “Yup. Great discussion everyone! Characters leaving units ...all you said... ” Agree with all your points, specially on the strategies that EW ruleset is aiming to avoid (character chaffing) KISS for Characters rules Quote from Remy77077: “Shooting power level ... Also I don't think Stand & Shoot will fix that imo. It will add a lot of rules complexity for very little change anyway for the weaker shooting units. Even Volley Fire will only be a tiny minor buff for Bows too -…

  • @mclizard Thanks for confirming, had the same feeling from the rules that it may be mostly related to basic bow-units (and Heavy Armour cavalry on the strong side) @piteglio good observations & thinking. I agree that it is not necessary to complicate the Basic Rules and that for Advanced games you have the Point costs to adjust balance. I´d still consider adding "Volley Fire" in "Model Rules" for Advanced Games, or at least do some playtesting with it. I feel this alone could address some of the…

  • Quote from piteglio: “thank you Calcathin! we will indeed try to fix the Aligning issue. and i like that you dont feel the need for characters Joining units, even in Advanced. im wondering about the Leaving units aspect tho, either for Advanced only or (as you suggest) both Basic and Advanced. this is because we have received feedback on shooty units as relatively underwhelming from the strategic point of view (i.e. damage output). i wonder if, by enforcing a "Remain" policy (sry), they could be…

  • Quote from piteglio: “how do you feel about extending to EW-Advanced the "either-in-or-out" restriction for Characters we have in EW-Basic? ” Having just recently read in full the EW rules, I felt in general very positive of the decisions (simplifications) you have decided to bring with EW. Everytime I had previously thought to myself what would be the key aspects to simplify, on the top of my list there was always: - Keep same unit formation throughout the entire battle - Simplify Character-spe…

  • Quote from Giladis: “From a background perspective the current Honours system is a bit mismatched because it mixes professions with personal achievement (or chosen lifestyle) aka honours. I hope we get to untangle that when we get to work on the LAB which may result in a complete overhaul in what honours are available, in what numbers and how they are distributed. Some of the existing ones might disappear completely to be replaced with new ones while others might get turned into individual chara…

  • @Kopistar we want to hear more!

  • Quote from arwaker: “You don't want MoCT to become more expensive next year? What is the measurable number you want to use as argument against such price increase? It is obviously 100% for you. Well, I don't agree on this number, but you must at least agree that it would be at least helpful to have such a number somehow agreed on. Because when there is no such number, how should RT know when to stop price increases? ” One way to look at it: Do we see commanders being fielded beyond the mandatory…

  • Quote from arwaker: “Just writing >10% is not enough, because 100% is something I don't want to see in any army. ” Yes, by all means. Ommited for simplicity, and because if all are >10% then none sould be at 100%, but agree to add in something like: - Aim to not have a unique entry (honour+mount) present in over 50% of lists. BSB might be the more controversial to achieve until one or more of these occur: - Sloop BSB comes down in price - On foot combat commanders have good builds (Dorac?) & opt…

  • @arwaker Regarding your internal balance assessment. I feel too you are bringing it to a too granular level. I´d look at it by Mages, Princes and Commanders under 2 types of analysis: 1 by Honour and 2 by mount. Separating Mages from Prince & Commanders. This way it simplifies the excercise a lot. 1. By Honour: Target: Each option appears >15% (1 out of 6 lists) - Mages: Vanilla Adept , Vanilla Master, Asfad, OotFH Adept, OotFH Master, MOCT - Prince & Commander: each non-wizard honour (incl. MoC…

  • Quote from Arthur: “ Prince on Griffon, Lance, Dragonforged Armour, Shield, Nova Flare, Glittering Lacquer, Daemon's Bane, Diadem of Protection 720 Commander, GW, Master of the Canreig Tower, BSB, 2x Aether Icon 410 High Prince, General, Heavy Armour, Shield, QC, Longbow, Moonlight Arrows, Sliver 465 Mage, Pyromancy 225 = 1800 Unlikely. But if you don't feel like investing 1275 points in 3w with a 4+ and 3w with a 6+, then it's a really good alternative I'd say! ” Do you rate the above BSB-less …

  • Quote from Adam: “you cannot calculate percentages of 0 since nobody takes on foot non BSB commanders. So maybe first fix that. ” Quote from matrim: “That's a design change unless hbe cdr cost same as a castellan. ” There are alternatives in the meantime. Mostly around this 1 item: - Protection of Dorac 60 --> 40pts This plus: - Commander and Prince - Include Heavy armour in profile, keep same price(*) - Adjust Dragonforged Armour by -15pt in Commander and -10pt in Prince That opens up new on-fo…

  • Quote from arwaker: “Well, the Temple Legate is probably the worst to compare to, because he is still under development, and his BSB + Wizard capability is among the most controversial design decisions. ” Not surprised at all with this. That model has a lot going on itself, plus on top of that: - is the only wizard adept character option in the army (and has access to Alchemy signature!) - has native cheap access to 4+ward with full item allowance The Legion legate (170pts) is 240pts if equipped…

  • Quote from Vidi51: “temple legate have aegis 4++ and buff her unit, big diference... ” “Only” buffs Temple militia unit, his/her own attacks and other Darag blades characters in same unit On the other hand MoCT has Master of Spellcrafting & a 3rd spell. Plus Life attribute is great fit for lists with Griffon/Dragon/ Phoenixes I think there is difference, but NOT AS BIG as you mention. I estimate it to be around 30-40pts