Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 357.

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

  • The two base sizes of the abomination is to allow you to play the old monstrous rat as the base arena beast, and the old abomination as the upgrade

  • Pretty sure it is on purpose to accommodate the two most commonly owned models in the community. (The standard GW vermin demon and the forge world one. The forge world vermin demon didn't fit on the previous base without tipping over)

  • I would posit that the new vermin swarm book has not deviated so far from the inspiring source material as you might think. I've always loved Skaven (my first completed Warhammer fantasy army) and if I try to define the core of what they are I would make an approximate list: 1. Cowardly but brave in numbers 2. Infighting/betrayal 3. Whacky and crazy technology 4. Cultural traits based on rats (burrowing, breeding fast etc.) 5. Rising up and replacing surface cultures If you look at the new book …

  • Just to pitch in my opinion as well. I really really enjoy the new names, specifically the ruinous dictator and his upgrades. Second favorite is the assasin with "disdain for plebs" and "sic semper tyrannis". I love the imagery of these guys viewing everybody else as far beneath them, even though they are pretty terrible fighters on their own. Also the fact that they might actually be serving a literal dictator, but they think that they are slaying tyrants in the name of some greater good. More …

  • I think you can only have 6 guys in a weapon team unit. I also play VS but from a UD perspective the catapults just got even better. They are already great against DE. So even more reason to take them now. I think cataphracts are a pretty good shout as well since VS don't have tons of AP now and they probably grind relatively well against rat units.

  • Quote from berti: “In my opinion there should be NOTHING in all the armys UNBREAKABLE. Bad rule in the game. (As the random movement rule allowing charges in any direction). Give them stubborn and add Disciple 10. Fearless. And be done. They are very reliable in fighting everything but not guaranteed until the last model killed / wound is inflicted. Sadly it seems this train already sailed away with the ID train. So if it is kept there, seekers can also have it, and EoS fantics... ” 100% agreed …

  • Quote from Stygian: “I personally really like undying will in its current form. Both the ows and dws buff and equally the LS. The concept of higher stats is thematic and I do like that concept quite a bit too. My issue with something like increased stats is that for most units its pretty irrelevant. Speaking of 3s that is. The difference between 3 and 2 weapon skills is pretty low. So its mostly for theme but would end up costing points. Now if these stats could be free and maybe UW changed to o…

  • personally I'd rather see this reflected in the "soft stats" ( off, def, agi, dis) instead of a heap of special rules. Skeletons could have on par soft stats with living counter parts. Basically base off/def 3 and agi 3 would already go some ways to making them better. Necro guard going up to 5 or something similar. Then perhaps undying will could make the units truly elite rather than just on par with living troops.

  • Even though the formation of the unit has technically changed?

  • If a character moves to join a unit of 10 guys (5 wide 2 deep) thereby displacing one guy from the front rank to the back, does the unit count as having moved for the purposes of shooting?

  • Does "yer comin with me" strikes from seekers benefit from +1 offensive skill of paired weapons?

  • DH 2.2 General discussion.

    Echunia - - Dwarven Holds (DH)

    Post

    Quote from pjosef: “Quote from Fnarrr: “So in summary: From a background perspective - You want the unit called a Watch to guard things. And you want the unit called a Guard to do something else. From a mechanical perspective - You want the unit that currently works to get changed. You want the unit that's struggling to find a reason to get taken to stay mostly the same. I hope whoever designs this LAB has free access to Xanax ” HAHAHA Problem is the community happyness. WE DO NOT AGREE ON WHAT …

  • Quote from Thunderforge: “Somehow sending in covert squads using vanguard and scout just doesn’t seem very dwarfish ” I disagree, I think ambushing and scouting, knowing the lay of the land, is very thematic. The dwarfs make up for their lack of mobility with preparation. These options kind of represent the master tactician side of dwarfs, deploying well, outflanking your opponent even though you are slow and so on. For me these options were what originally attracted me to the army. Currently, I…

  • Quote from Aleph Null: “Decided to have a bash at actually creating a Barrow Legions book. Have a look and tell me what you think. Barrow Legions I do NOT consider this complete - at the very least, I think it could stand to have another couple of Special options and at least one more Dispossessed unit. (I know supplements tend to have fewer entries than "proper" army books, but even so.) Also, the points are probably wonky as hell; I did my best, but I'm not really in a position to playtest any…

  • Additionally I would argue that every army has some identity on the table top, i.e. some things it's good at and some things it's bad at. For example WotDG are characterized by a lack of shooting but an overabundance of character killing power (simplified of course). This is what creates the character of the army. For an army to truly feel like "barrow", "terracotta" or "Pyramid legion" then it would have different strengths and weaknesses. If all of those were included in one book then they wou…

  • The only thing that is broken about it is that it works on bound spells. Otherwise it isnt too bad, perhaps a medium price increase is inorder though.

  • I'll just echo others opinions that I hope barrow and terracotta get their own full supplement books. The only positive I can see with keeping them in the main book is to allow people to play them at the most competitive tournaments. Personally, I don't see that outweighing the negatives. Additionally, many tournaments are coming around to allowing supplement books.

  • Leader of the scottish championship UB tournament (5k pts) after 3 rounds with 52/60 pts is a UD player. He uses this list: 760 - Pharaoh, General, Sha Guardian, Light Armour, Great Weapon (Godslayer), Crown of the Pharaohs 375 - Death Cult Hierarch, Wizard Master, Evocation, Soul Conduit 295 - Death Cult Hierarch, Wizard Adept, Divination, Book of Arcane Mastery, Hierophant 275 - Tomb Harbinger, Skeleton Chariot, Light Armour, Great Weapon, Death Mask of Teput 205 - Tomb Architect, Light Armour…

  • Quote from Chronocide: “Quote from Echunia: “Reducing enemy maneuverability Trapped terrain ” ID tried to do this too, where they get a whole bunch of abilities to solve the weaknesses that dwarves face. I don't like it. If you don't want to have those weaknesses, fix the weaknesses into something more bearable. For example, I don't see why DH "need" move 3. If you want to play a near-immobile army, that's fine with me, but when you start pushing your lack of mobility on my army because I should…

  • Quote from berti: “I would start with a basic army. And of course these guilds could perfectly BE the current Category Limitations. Well thought army wide special rule much like the current ones. (I like both, sturdy and the +1 to casting value) that work on every dwarfen unit in the book. Staying basic. no special rule bloat. Core units should be simple. Dwarfs with good gear (perhaps there is room for a single special rule on equipment) and the army wide special rules. Special units may have o…