Search Results

Quote from Happy Aspid: “Problem with ID shooting is - it barely can be used as gunline since their range is close to non-existent outside of few artillery pieces. Elfs can pepper you with shooting turn 1 to turn 6 doing damage every turn. Your own units will mostly shoot 2-3 times per entire game. ” This is true. In previous book iterations, I deployed a 20 model wide line of Slave Orcs at the deployment line and marched everything up on first turn, centered on my immortals. They absolutely sav…

Quote from WhammeWhamme: “ The maximum unit size on Citadel Guard is related to maximum point costs allowed of units. The most expensive Citadel Guard unit currently legal is 30 Citadel Guard with Flintlocks (and full command), which tips the scales at 780 points. The limit is generally around 800 points, with some exceptions for (if I recall correctly what the exceptions are) pure combat units to go to around 1000. At ~25ppm, raising the cap on Citadel Guard to 35 would break 900, and going to …

Quote from Peacemaker: “Quote from Shane: “I’d love to see the competitive tournament army that would exist if this restriction were not in place. ” I think it's more for team tournaments where a list can be tailored for RPS matches. ” I think it’s a holdover of general concern the developers had for the game itself, the heavy restriction of volume and limiting effectiveness of shooting, especially in regards to ranked units and Core. Possibly that combined with some holdover restrictions ID car…

Quote from Thunderforge: “Quote from Shane: “Quote from Thunderforge: “Also chainmail is a heat-sink, it’ll mostly make you colder rather than warmer. But yes, you would wear it as little as needed. It would also be a death sentence if you wore it at sea! Changing the subject… ” Subject change ignored!It’s actually shocking how few people could swim with any degree of skill in the ancient or medieval world. Even a significant proportion of coastal peoples and seafarers seem to be incompetent in …

Quote from Squirrelloid: “Talk to your buddies and come to an agreement about a different limit, maybe? ” Oh yeah, as soon as I pointed it out my play group was like “you can just ignore that…”, none of them are worried about me bringing MORE Core shooting Dwarfs. Quote from Peacemaker: “why don't you just figure it out as a percentage so if you play 5000pts you can take a few more? I'm not a fan of these types of limits like with SE bows, etc... But it's really just for competitive tourney play…

Quote from Thunderforge: “Also chainmail is a heat-sink, it’ll mostly make you colder rather than warmer. But yes, you would wear it as little as needed. It would also be a death sentence if you wore it at sea! Changing the subject… ” Subject change ignored! It’s actually shocking how few people could swim with any degree of skill in the ancient or medieval world. Even a significant proportion of coastal peoples and seafarers seem to be incompetent in that regard.

Gents, in trying to write some lists for larger games I have hit a hilarious wall. The absolutely nonsense “0-60 R&F models with Blunderbuss or Flintlock Ace or Pistol per Army” seems like just an inane restriction that exists for absolutely no sensible reason, but at least it at least doesn’t matter at standard sized games. Moving above that though? Limited to basically 60 Core Dwarves means I’m actually called out at the Core I run at 4500pts, Until I get to a Grand Army of 8000pts+, where…

Quote from dan: “Generally not my aesthetic either because they’re so busy, but that’s going to vary by person and I recognize I’m probably in the minority. Like I think this is an improvement: zbw6dD7.jpg The only thing that is objectively wrong with any of those models is the proportions on that horse sculpt. I don’t just mean it’s too large - look at the size of the horse’s head compared to the body, and something is also off with the leg to torso height ratio or the placement of the barding …

Quote from blackmashoo: “cheapest caster option on foot with 2+ armour i guess... ” I regularly just wish I could take the wizard with no upgrade. Would be wonderful to have those points back into the character section, especially when considering two casters. Quote from Crazydwarf: “Yup, might aswell get a lugar with 4++ then ” and, situationally, the significantly higher movement could allow him to reposition to an important spot, especially late game when a damaged unit could be

Quote from Tyranno: “Those models do not look great... Proportions feel really off in both. Especially the Bret lord. ” really? That knight looks to have the best proportions of a model I’ve seen in a very long time. his helmet is actually of the right size to fit over his head, as opposed to being the same size as his unhelmeted head, as most designers and artists do for some reason. Very reasonable sized hands and feet, unlike old GW and many modern designers, and a good overall armour design …

Quote from Happy Aspid: “Only trade-off here is price difference. How much spear and pistol is cheaper than flintlock. ” Occasionally I consider that the Flintlock model is losing it’s pistol in the process, which surely must have been worked into the cost of the model (and losing it’s use Of the shield in combat) before paying the 9ppm for the Halberd, meaning there’s a hidden tax in there that probably pushes the swing to about 10ppm, and I consider how the whole thing is just obviously over-p…

Quote from WhammeWhamme: “ It "ignores" that because it's *irrelevant*. The design isn't - and never has been - a "bad handgun". It's the weapon that logically should exist at the intersection of a handgun and a pistol. Plus a fully functional Halberd. It's a full power shooting weapon plus a full power melee weapon - no trade off. Same as pistol and spear. ” It’s of course not the same at all as the pistol and the spear, as the pistol retains it’s full ruleset and can be combined with the spear…

Quote from SlaveToThePyre: “ People who have modelled Warriors wielding both blunderbusses and great weapons (which sounds strange to me since both weapons are kind of unwieldy for a model in a 20 mm base) can use such models to switch from one option to another according to the list they are playing. ” Don’t forget that such a model is also holding a shield somehow, which he CAN use when firing his two handed weapon, but can’t use when swinging his two handed axe. Truly, the ways of the many-ar…

Quote from WhammeWhamme: “I don't see Flintlock Axes as trading off 6" of range for a halberd, but as trading it off for losing Unwieldy. Like, continuum: Pistol is 12" Quick to Fire, Flintlock is 18" nothin', Handgun is 24" Unwieldy. Whether or not the trade is a good one, another question, but it seems a pretty solid bit of internal consistency. ” That ignores the fact that the halberd/handgun weapon has been consistent in design since before t9A existed. t9A inherited that design and has kept…

Quote from WhammeWhamme: “ "Both roles with some kind of trade off" is one of the themes of the ID book. It shouldn't be that way project-wide; dual-purpose units that thus have high eliteness and end up likely outnumbered if not relying on filler is a specific niche. ” It’s a heavily failed attempt at enacting that theme if that’s the case. The Core units with ranged and combat options are Vassals, who can freely combine any of their weapon options with their ranged option, Warriors, who can fr…

Quote from Kriegschmidt: “Since CG are only Agi 2, I don't see why anyone would pay for S5 AP2 CG when you can have S5 AP2 Warriors with BBs for 18% less. With March and Shoot and no penalty for Stand and Shoot. I've taken to playing Banner of Speed on my BB Warriors (20 with Sh and 28 with Sh and GW) because: - it makes them Adv 4 for Swift Reform - it makes them March 11 for ensuring that they get charged - it gives them a 23" threat range with their BBs I find them challenging to use without …

Quote from Kudis: “9 (NINE!?) points per model for flintlock on citadel? thats 390 points. Does anyone play this? Are they worth the point cost? Do you get full command on them? I found cool models and i'm wondering if its worth it for in game play ” I run two units of 24, full command, Flaming Banners. They are absolutely NOT worth their points. I’m fully aware of this, and being fully aware, have invested all the way into them anyways. They are useful generally in the form of one unit, which y…

That just means that DE players lose access to that model as an option. Doesn’t seem like a worthwhile goal to strive for. Additionally, VC have a similar option with their Colossal Dragon, which is certainly not worth it as a point for point competitive choice, but again, it’s inclusion allows players to use models that would otherwise be disallowed by base size.

If we’re throwing out ideas, I hereby propose a similar option for all lord monsters, similar to the Big Brother giant. A consistent, simple upgrade that can even be agreeably less competitive than the standard that can be applied across armies to allow players more freedom in model choice. The Colossal Zombie Dragon being an excellent example.

Quote from Peacemaker: “It all depends on your own imagination I guess.I see the Infernal Dwarf society separating their slaves into all sorts of categories. The ones they can't use for work become the cannon fodder slaves. I wouldn't select the best fighting slaves because they are more likely to turn on their masters. Slaves who are good at fighting are risky as slaves. Even the Romans made that mistake and had the Spartacus rebellions. The Aztecs sacrificed their fighter captives. The Arab wo…