Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 762.

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

  • Quote from Darksaga: “Ehm, they were in book for 6th edition. That book came out at the end of 5th edition (i think? its kinda long ago) which was in the year of 2005. So 13 years ago. How far back does it have to go to become iconic? True they are not wardancers or pathfinders but still ... ” Now listen 'ere. When I was a lad, wild huntsmen weren't even a twinkle in their mother's eye. SE proudly rode around on chariots (although we never knew how they fitted between the trees), dryads had tree…

  • Quote from Hoffa: “What wfb did was to create an illusion of simplicity. The rules were written in a very casual easy to read style. Unfortunately this was an illusion for after a while you started to run into situation after situation not covered by the rules and then you learnt about the argument phase. T9A has stripped away all this false simplicity and tried to cover all the things WHFB did not. This has created a game that is much harder to learn but works much better for experienced player…

  • Quote from JimMorr: “And how it happened that WFB has been introductory game for most watgamers worldwide on T9A is too difficult for 80%? What are the reasons? Has the market changed so much or rather has our game become more complex rules-wise? ” (Bolded quote by me) Is this true? For everyone I knew growing up. 40k was the introductory game. Then some of those people graduated to WFB. The UK is pretty saturated by GW stores, so new wargamers in the UK predominantly come through GW. I would sa…

  • Quote from CariadocThorne: “I think in this case it is fair to call them iconic, even as a relatively newer addition to the army. ” I'm not saying that calling them iconic is unreasonable. But I think I am saying that I think these things are very personal/subjective, and I find it fascinating to see different perspectives on this.

  • Quote from Clef: “ (About WH) Sadly, this iconic unit currently is the worst choice in the book (excluding items and mounts). ” Apologies, this is a touch off topic. I find comments like this really interesting. WH did not even exist when I started playing SE, but to someone else they are an iconic unit. I think it is fascinating to see how different people's perspectives can be.

  • Fixing Thunder Cannons

    DanT - - Ogre Khans (OK)

    Post

    Quote from Fnarrr: “This is likely because you haven't played DH yet. They don't get much more out of cannons than the other 3, so if you don't dig them elsewhere... ” I hedged because I know your DH list with cannons does ok

  • Fixing Thunder Cannons

    DanT - - Ogre Khans (OK)

    Post

    To be fair, I think cannons are rarely a good choice these days. DH seem to be able to make reasonable use of them, but I would personally never take them in EoS, VS or OK. So I think my personal claim would be thus: whilst the difference in cost between a thundercannon and EoS cannon might be correct, the base cannon cost is probably too high.

  • Quote from Shane: “Quote from KuuttiX: “"Don't forget Portal. That's the way the whole list works! If you're trying to run infantry with no Portal then you're just not playing the game right and don't deserve to win!" So the only way to run an infantry list is with a hellmaw? doesn't sound right to me ” It's certainly not the only way, but it's the only viable way as other tools to make it so have been removed. ” Out of interest, can I ask what you consider to the tools for this that were remove…

  • Quote from Adam: “If you are asking me how I would overhaul the game the answer is a bit too lengthy for a single forum post. As far as the complexity of determining who can strike there are none - front rank strikes that is all. Models on the side get bonus (that is quite easy to eyeball when units touch each other and you can always resort to trusty folded piece of paper with 45 deg angle) ” Fair. But I feel like this kinda makes my point: It does require a complete overhaul of the game, when …

  • Quote from Adam: “@DanT my example proposal would be: Do not align units during the charge (this is important to change the rule from being either A or B). Determine how many models are in front/flank. The ones hitting the flank get certain bonus (+1 to hit/wound for example), the ones from front do not (so some of your models hit his unit in the flank and are more efficient, the more you are in the flank the more efficient you get). Winner forces looser to align to him (so we are not left with …

  • Quote from Adam: “Exactly, that is not the issue exactly with precision but rather how hard can it swing the game. And since it can turn the game around completely it is obvious that you spend a lot of time getting it right. ” Do you have a sketch for how this might be solved? I struggle to imagine such a thing, but would love to see one. Let me try to explain why: Fundamentally, if ranks exist, there needs to be a definition of whether an enemy unit is within a particular facing (there also nee…

  • Partly it depends how happy players are to agree things and get on with the game, which is why I would never go back to a game without premeasuring now. I'm not sure there is a trivial solution to this part though. I mean games without ranks and flanks are faster of course, but ranks and flanks are exactly what this game brings that those games don't.

  • Quote from JimMorr: “1.Watching top players battle reports you will notice that their claim is that game is decided in 70% by army composition and deployment. So the game itself is execution of battle plan rather then actual game. The actual game happens before first miniature is moved. Spending 3-4 hours on confirming battle results is a bit suboptimal... ” Quote from Adam: “@JimMorr on top of that you can add spending 10 min to place unit so that it is exactly X.01" from something with threat …

  • Quote from Randdogs: “It might be beneficial to the team in evaluation if play testing included if the mechanic "breaks or bogs down the flow of the game." Do you really have to think about a bunch of restrictions while testing the mechanic out. Does the mechanic play well thematically in your head? ” I agree completely. In fact, in my opinion, internal playtesting should be primarily focussed on things like this: whether mechanics are easily understandable and applied, whether units are fun to …

  • Quote from Kaszalot: “The risk cannot be taken vs competitive players. ” I am afraid this statement is not true. I had reasonable success in 1.3 with the essentially identical item. It simply comes down to how you cover your weaknesses with the rest of the list and how you play the match. (And yes, I did play against models with flaming wards, including generic characters, ID with their built in flaming wards and even (twice in tournaments) an alpha carnosaur with flaming ward).

  • Quote from Randdogs: “I'm going to go out on a limb here DanT and say that the people you were surprised about thought the idea was great until the above two quotes come into play and suddenly those people are thinking that is more trouble than it is worth and breaks their immersion or "vision of what is happening on the tabletop."At that point it is just easier to ask for a plus one attack rather than jump through hoops trying to make that item work. ” You might be right. That is not the impres…

  • Quote from Aenarion43: “@DanT (Hidden Content) ” (Quote spoilered for thread readability) Ok, good, nothing in your post is new to me. This means that I haven't missed anything, I'm just using different words to you I agree that absolute power level and variance are often the issues when people moan about overbalancing. Let me try to summarise what you are saying here: (A) Some players want a higher absolute power level. (B) Some players want higher variance. (C) Some general statements about wh…

  • Let me follow up a little on what I said regarding internal balance, then I will stop derailing this thread (but feel free to PM me to discuss this further if you wish). (Note that this is personal opinions and shouldn't be taken as a statement by the project). I did not say that every unit is equally viable. Nor have I said that every army book is equal in this regard. I would personally point to WotDG as being unacceptably internally balanced currently, so I am also not saying that things are …

  • Quote from Tyranno: “I agree on the part about stores and being 0 risk. But the balance is a bit of a different issue. While there are fewer auto-include units I can think off of the top of my head, there are plentiful units which are costed so high or are just so useless at what they do that they are auto-avoid picks. I know we will get around to solving it eventually; but right now, while we do have external balance as good as it's ever been...internal is really wonky for some of armies. (E.g.…

  • Quote from Mousterian: “They move 5 (slower than the 6" average), are off 4/def3 (awful) agi 3 (average, but awful for warriors), and have 2 wounds. Not really selling me on their fighting prowess. ” 3 str4 attacks, res5, potential 2+ save with shields (also countering their low DS). Also worth noting that unlike chosen they can't be stomped and only need 3 models for a full rank. I certainly wouldn't describe their fighting prowess as poor. Kind of a pointless discussion though I guess. I mean,…