9th Age 9th Age (beta) out now - check link in first post

Yeah that is also what the wall told me.

But then the Slann would be disturbed in his contemplations, and we don't want that to happen.

 

So pink, any words on what assignment they want you to do? I think it's great to help these much troubled souls out as much as possible, they really seems to have their hands full.

 

I Would be tempted, but sadly my company blocks that site,
so I wouldn't be as active there as I am here.

 

That's pretty in depth. I wonder how many applications have been sent their way?

That is true.

So roughly how many of your 5500+ posts were made from work?

 

I can neither confirm nor deny that it's A large undisclosed amount...

 

It's all worth it in the pursuit and attainment of Slannhood!

 

You should ask them what other roles are available.

 

Where can I find the rule that prevents double fleeing from working? Page 14 under redirecting a charge says that in the case of a double flee, the charger may choose which of the two fleeing units they are attempting to charge (before rolling the charge distance).

 

Oh that is dirty... I was completely mistaken on how double fleeing worked. I just figured that the second unit to flee simply fled far enough as to cause a failed charge in the charging unit. I had no idea that involved this "blocking business". That is some serious rules lawyering to gain an advantage... that bugs me.
This does raise a query...
If the charger's charge range is sufficient to bring it into contact with the first fleeing unit (that is now blocking the way) wouldn't that count as a successful charge and lead to the destruction of that unit? Rationale: "technically" you did declare a charge against it; the "redirecting the charge" (BRB, p. 18) states that the unit can declare a fresh charge against another viable target, but it does not directly specify that the original charge declaration is null and void (and yes this is rules lawyering to fight rules lawyering).


In any event, if that is indeed the mechanism by which double fleeing worked then kudos to the 9th age group for doing away with that non-sense.

 

I think we disagree on 8th roll for the Bastiladon. It's ineffectiveness in combat made it take up a support/flank guard roll in 8th. Inherently support, it is not. I think you answered your own question when you said his name means fortress, as well as it being modeled after arguably the most combat-defensive adapted dinosaur to ever exist. As well as originally having several combat abilities including having no flanks and a str 10 attack.
That is where the idea of being a combat monster came from. I hope I'm not the only one who had that idea.

Making him a corpse cart is an injustice. Further they removed the special monster with stubborn. And if you didn't catch that I said I assumed the Bastiladon was intended to fill the role we lost. As well as saying he is now very good. I fully understand that having a corpse cart fallowing around our combat units giving them pioson and +1 WS is very good. It's just an injustice to the model and not as intended. It seems my mistake was assuming other Lizardmen players wanted the same thing as me. I'll revise my statement to say "I am disappointed and feel that they completely missed the mark and I would have much prefered that they fill the hole they created in many of my lists and raise the Bastiladon's defensive aspects, keep his slight buff, and stay true to his name and original design mechanics, but do it better than 8th did. Doing it in a way it can actually be in combat, IE not run away to LD rolls it's first phase. "
It may be because I do run the small steg more often than the usual LM player. But the way I anticipate this Bastiladon to play, saddens me. Think about me when you place your "fortress" behind your Saurus block. Then you may understand my perspective. Not as a competitive player understanding how insanely good this new Bastiladon is, but as a fluff player hiding his "fortress" from magic and shooting. His combat abilities are useless fluff and may as well be removed since the pivotal role this model now plays makes him far too valuable to see any combat and is a slap to the fluff's face.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was pretty wasted when I typed it as I am now. But it makes sense to me reading it now. I hate on the 7th and 8th edition TG. Mostly because, as I stated earlier, in a doubles match my slann miscast twice and blew away their combat effectiveness. Them being a large majority of my army's points, my teammate carried the overpowered 7th edition LM to victory. And he knew it! And he let me know! It was embarrassing to me. Since I am an uncommonly unlucky player, I no longer bunker my slann in the TG in fear the decision will end up ruining my night. To run a unit of TG without a slann, is not something I do either. In 8th, you are effectively paying 3 points per model for +1 WS +1 str +1 Initiative, No parry save(HW) / 1 less rank of predatory fighter(spear). I don't find that worth it. But that is a personal preference. If you reread that section, I wasn't actually hating on the TG, merely stressing the point that I don't often run the slann or the TG/slann unit. And how awe struck I am at "9th's" decision to nerf the slann in this way. I honestly would be much more satisfied if they increased his base cost by 150pts. It really is crippling to the LM army. And I don't mean our effectiveness given the buffs, in particular the Bastiladon going from a 5 out of 10 to a solid 10/auto include. I mean crippling to our way of life, our style of play. I'd much rather play something that sucks, but is true to the army (tomb kings in 8th), rather than something that is good, but bastardizes the basic ideas of the army (9th age LM).

I don't mean to offend. Just assume my angrier post are made while drunk.

 

hahaha didnt know double fleeing worked thata way, what a scam, good ridence...

 

How the 9th age guys should do Lizardmen (and I believe I am "speaking" for the majority here) is look at Lizardmen's fluff, and go from there, make it match the fluff and price it accordingly, maybe some things will be very expensive, but I think that would be okay if it makes sense.

They have done a good job so far, but they cannot make it better if they cannoyt "hear" us.
There really is no point in arguing over this, we should rather write to them give them something to work with, that they might make the Lizardmen army that we want. (make a poll or something about it )

 

I agree we should formulate a new proposition which would have two parts - one which would contain must changes like the slann disciplines, and the other vieder with flexibile suggestions

 

The problem I find a little bit is that now we post everything here and we post in bulk. Maybe creating a tread for every unit and special army rule ( perhaps even with polls), would be better. Instead of talkin about some points or the entire thing, we can discuss everything seperatly with a better overvieuw of oppinions.