This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Fellow T9A gamers, it's finally time for the annual balance update. Not a moment too soon! Find all information about it in our news.
The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is available! You can read all about it in the news.
The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!
Nope, RAW they don't have to as the model only counts as a casualty (i.e. is destroyed, which is necessary for having to take a panic test) if the rebirth roll fails.GenePhelps wrote:
A Phoenix loses it's last wound in combat
It rolls the 5+ and places the marker on the board
Do the friendly units within 6" take panic checks?
. Nope.Herminard wrote:
Question:
Can a Treefather Ancient join a Treefather?
My assumption was no (and I dont trust that the reign of permissive paradigm still exists) but I could not find any permission nor negative clausules under "20.B.2 Characters Joined to Units".
Cheers,
Yeah, having line of sight before the pivot is not a prerequisite for being able to charge (as this is not a "regular" charge, which is also why unit charged this way don't get a charge reaction).Flavus wrote:
1. Can those green and blue my units declare a charge vs red unit (on left side) if I roll enough to touch him on pursue?
If you roll high enough to touch the red unit, it will be destroyed. Technically you check if you reach the unit, and if you do you declare a charge against that unit. As the enemy unit does not get a charge reaction, it has to stay in place, and the rules for 9.B.b.6 Charging a Fleeing Unit apply.Flavus wrote:
2. If red unit is already flee and blue or green unit roll enough to touch him, red is automatically destroyed? Or I cannot declare charge on pursue, because red unit was in out of LOS for blue and green units?
In general you have to remove casualties equally from both sides of the first rank. If this would however lead to the number of units and/or the number of models in base contact not being maximised, you have to remove casualties in a way that ensures maximising contact.Adalidsilvano wrote:
My unit is in a single rank and engaged in combat with an enemy unit.
Do I have to remove my casualties from both sides equally or may I remove them from either side as long as the number of models in contact is still maximised?
There is a reference in 14.H.b , but I´m not sure if removing from either side can be done always or just in multiple combats.
. So this isn't an exception to the "remove models from both sides equally" rule; but the wording actually implies otherwise!Removing R&F Models from Units Engaged in Combat
[...] In addition, if the unit is in a single rank, remove casualties from either side of the unit, so that the number of units (highest priority) and number of models (lowest priority) in base contact is maximised.
Sure, this is the rule:Eisenheinrich wrote:
In general you have to remove casualties equally from both sides of the first rank. If this would however lead to the number of units and/or the number of models in base contact not being maximised, you have to remove casualties in a way that ensures maximising contact.Adalidsilvano wrote:
My unit is in a single rank and engaged in combat with an enemy unit.
Do I have to remove my casualties from both sides equally or may I remove them from either side as long as the number of models in contact is still maximised?
There is a reference in 14.H.b , but I´m not sure if removing from either side can be done always or just in multiple combats.
If you have a particular situation in mind, feel free to post a rough sketch - this helps answering this sort of question
Yeah, there will be more detailed rules, examples, and figuresCaledoriv wrote:
That's probably something that can be clarified, then.
.Nope, as removing the models this way "does not follow the general rules for removing R&F models"Adalidsilvano wrote:
Red unit suffers 4 casualties and I think I might remove every model except from model nº2 as it accomplish every requirement from 14.H.B:
- the units is in combat
- it´s a single rank unit
- number of units in contact is still maximised (1vs 1)
- number of models are also maximised (3vs1).
Is it right?
. RAI you'd have to remove 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Eisenheinrich wrote:
As announced a couple of weeks ago, we now give you an exclusive sneak peek on the WIP version of our rulebook
The first version below contains all the changes implemented including text that was replaced or removed, marked in strikethrough.
In the second version, all strikethrough passages have been removed for better readability:
Bear in mind that this is work in progress! We have not implemented all the changes from the chapter of the week threads yet, just as some things that have been implemented are still subject to discussion and might not make it into the final version. Besides, new figures will be added, and old ones have not been updated yet.Eru wrote:
But we would still like to ask for your feedback already now. Please have a look at the changes and let us know how you like the overall direction, and also report any errors, typos, etc. you may find.
Some elements (e.g. the summary chapter and "the how to read unit entries" section) are still missing, but the alphabetical index at the end of the book has been implemented. Please have a closer look at that. Anything missing? Any suggestions for improvement?
And finally, you will notice that the changes in the WIP BRB do not only affect wording, spelling, layout, etc. (marked in green, as usual), but there are also a few actual rule changes scattered throughout the book (marked in blue). Here we would like to hear your feedback on the changed mechanic for determining cover (but please do keep it civil
Please post your general feedback in the The road to 205 - general discussion thread, and all other specific feedback in the corresponding chapter of the week thread (see post above; I'll also add the list to the first post of this thread).
I think that's it for now. Have fun browsing the PDFs!
Looking forward to your feedback!
He still have protean magic, so two #1 moreMa7e wrote:
A question about the additional option of Master of canreig tower;
It says; ,,High Prince must gain 2 additional Learned Spells"
Does this mean it gains the additional two Learned Spell #1 from the two path remaining or can I choose two additional spells from Learned Spell 1-4 of any path it has acces to?
Thank youKharneth wrote:
He still have protean magic, so two #1 moreMa7e wrote:
A question about the additional option of Master of canreig tower;
It says; ,,High Prince must gain 2 additional Learned Spells"
Does this mean it gains the additional two Learned Spell #1 from the two path remaining or can I choose two additional spells from Learned Spell 1-4 of any path it has acces to?
Basically, he choose one not know spell from his six spell he can know (five #5 and the hbe hereditary spell)
- 
