Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 908.

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

  • Good summary. I also prefer Pathfinder's and the cost isn't that different anymore. But I would advise loading up on both and fill core with something other than SA.

  • UD (unofficial) LAB

    Stygian - - New army books

    Post

    Agreed. If war chariots had s5 ap2 I might consider them. I'd still probably prefer light troops honestly but that would be tempting. But ap1 and s5 on the charge only is really meh. It gets you into situations you shouldn't be in really. Why not put the former light troops version back and then instead of a royal guard infantry make a royal guard chariot unit. As it should be! Now that would be some cool shiz. Edit- ugh phone post sorry for the font..

  • UD (unofficial) LAB

    Stygian - - New army books

    Post

    Some good changes since last I checked in here I like pretty much every change you've made. I also really like most of the suggested 'fixes' from Setepenmentou and Folomo. Much of this list below resonates with me, was possibly sparked by some of my comments since most of these are on my list of concerns. Anyway I'd like to give some further feedback: Quote from Folomo: “Not all of the listed items are "problems" and the solution for some of them may impact negatively other aspects of the book, …

  • I did answer that one but it wasn't much of an answer lol. I like yours better Dan!

  • 2.0 is faster hands down. As for home brewing I can't see why one would be better than the other.

  • Thats what I'm saying. The category of hex seems to exist largely to limit targeting of friendly models. But this balancing rule splash damages DH. Hex is not honorable so DH won't use hexes.. result is no missile spells. Seems like an unfortunate application to me.

  • Does that design philosophy mean no direct damage spells? What I mean is it seems DH are caught in an unfortunate place because hex is part of damage spells in 9th. Perhaps DH missile spells should not be hexes then?

  • I enjoyed 1.1 quite a bit, and much less so the following editions when the rules were stripped down. Now the game is quite a bit different from those early days. It's evolved more into its own game rather than just a spiritual successor. I'd say mostly better, but maybe not entirely. Without getting specific if your group values customization of characters and potential for more power combos over sheer balance then maybe they would prefer 1.1.. it's closer to GWs style after all. And certain th…

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “@Phosphorus I think the armour penetration will be like 40k and AoS. And there won't be math involved to calculate how much armour a model has, it will just be listed on the profile. Things like shields will be goven other defensive rules like in AoS. It really is a more simplified version to just put the armour save listed as 3+ or something, rather than calculate plate+horse+shield. I really think the game will just be the 40k statline/ layout with rules from shields/ba…

  • Not a dwarf player so maybe this is off base.. but I feel like reducing thrown weapon costs substantially would open up some really solid and interesting builds. I've always felt like mass TW access was a key component but was priced out of consideration, for the most part.

  • I agree with those against suggesting nerfs. Increasing dch cost to offset the hierophant tax doesn't feel like a discount to me personally. If that's the trade off I feel like it's better left alone. This could result in more bad feelings towards the "upgrade" and could warp lists more than now if RT prices dch too high. Horse mounts are taken because other mounts are bad so increasing cost doesn't fix those mounts. Changes to wargear options and changes to nomarch stats and reduced cost all co…

  • Then we are in agreement mostly. But ranged isn't really what I was thinking of with that statement. Nomarch with heroes heart is as decent as any other race only slower and lower ws/agi/protection than many/most. And to me just not good enough for that role when it can sit safely back using the crown instead of being lightly armoured inside the unit. It adds too many points for not enough return and doesn't increase the capability of the unit to handle bigger threats by it's presence. Like a ph…

  • Too specialized now though. I see the nomarch as a crown bearer that's all. Anyway I'd be grateful for whatever pts breaks whatever units get but it's a bandaid to me really. Labs is where I'm hoping for the real excitement. Edit- not complaining, I like the book I like the army. Just saying the parts that need some help ain't getting fixed with points breaks.

  • This is a good idea to me. However with the current pricing model for UA I see this negatively impacting the scorpion which is already just a novelty include. Hopefully UA pricing is changed/adjusted in the future.

  • More on underground ambush: I would like to see the UA cost separated from the unit cost. This would allow a better more true costing of each unit. On that note I would prefer one standard UA cost.. rather than say something like incrementally costing. This because higher points value units incur greater downside and equal risk of not arriving meaning it is always better to take more cheap units than one more expensive unit. So for example a set cost of 40 points for UA. I feel like this one cha…

  • Agree with most of what's posted here. I'll add my own and just to reiterate what others have said as well. Keeping it simple.. -1. hierophant This should be free or simply 15 pts. Different costs skews list design in a non fluffy way and its a huge drawback slash bull's-eye. -2. tomb architect This is also over costed. The cost was baked into units early on and then this unit received pts increase without units cost decrease to compensate. Alternately give the statues a discount and keep this g…

  • But we ARE slower than dwarves already. And charging isn't something the army desires as much as most other armies. Giving up ranged attacks is a consideration in the abstract but this would be a choice (may not must is what I mean).

  • I was brewing my latest list for some upcoming games and pondering the nature of undead. Slow perhaps although GoT gave us a different take. Shambling ya maybe. But more than this they are relentless, unwaivering, untiring, unstoppable. So why is undead unable to March? Shouldn't undead instead be slower at advancement but always marching? Consider if UD retained human stats (to represent the remnant of their previous life) and then undead confers -1 advance/-2 March AND may always march. Then p…

  • Really dig the list with that change Dan.

  • For me living units would completely break the immersion of an undead army. Giving those units rules that living units have is one thing, and cool for themed modeling and such. And that is what I'd like to see. But actual living units actually detracts from the army for me. If a living unit is good enough then I'd probably feel compelled to play them (hope not) but never model them as anything but undead. Feels too much like 40k mix and match factions. It waters down the flavor of a pure faction…