Dread Elves 2.0 Beta Armybook

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Mamut wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Lord Temnir wrote:

    I can imagine giving Yema a table-wide Vanguard move to better choose the unit match-ups, would be a way. On the other hand, giving Cadaron a cheap ambush option to reflect the hunting aspect, would be a way.
    I already have a wood elf army. What's wrong with the current Yema?
    I reckon Yema is actually the best cult upgrade and doesn't need any changes. Its the only mono cult I consider using. Strider is so good, let alone M6.
    totally agree.
    What about Cadaron? It's powerfull(on shades and DR), fluffy("let's get closer to them, i wanna see them bleed!" or something), and encourages a risk-reward playstyle, which is always great.
    +1 to hit short range is fantastic on ravens and DRs, I’ve had a lot of success with it, however the cost of putting it on core auxiliaries, in terms of points and the restrictions necessary for a monocult Cadaron army is too great and not nearly a significant enough attribute to either built an army or strategy on.
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    Mamut wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Lord Temnir wrote:

    I can imagine giving Yema a table-wide Vanguard move to better choose the unit match-ups, would be a way. On the other hand, giving Cadaron a cheap ambush option to reflect the hunting aspect, would be a way.
    I already have a wood elf army. What's wrong with the current Yema?
    I reckon Yema is actually the best cult upgrade and doesn't need any changes. Its the only mono cult I consider using. Strider is so good, let alone M6.
    totally agree.
    What about Cadaron? It's powerfull(on shades and DR), fluffy("let's get closer to them, i wanna see them bleed!" or something), and encourages a risk-reward playstyle, which is always great.
    +1 to hit short range is fantastic on ravens and DRs, I’ve had a lot of success with it, however the cost of putting it on core auxiliaries, in terms of points and the restrictions necessary for a monocult Cadaron army is too great and not nearly a significant enough attribute to either built an army or strategy on.
    Again I agree, at the end of the day it’s still S3 shooting.

    Nice on the DR though.
  • Cam wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Mamut wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Lord Temnir wrote:

    I can imagine giving Yema a table-wide Vanguard move to better choose the unit match-ups, would be a way. On the other hand, giving Cadaron a cheap ambush option to reflect the hunting aspect, would be a way.
    I already have a wood elf army. What's wrong with the current Yema?
    I reckon Yema is actually the best cult upgrade and doesn't need any changes. Its the only mono cult I consider using. Strider is so good, let alone M6.
    totally agree.
    What about Cadaron? It's powerfull(on shades and DR), fluffy("let's get closer to them, i wanna see them bleed!" or something), and encourages a risk-reward playstyle, which is always great.
    +1 to hit short range is fantastic on ravens and DRs, I’ve had a lot of success with it, however the cost of putting it on core auxiliaries, in terms of points and the restrictions necessary for a monocult Cadaron army is too great and not nearly a significant enough attribute to either built an army or strategy on.
    Again I agree, at the end of the day it’s still S3 shooting.
    Nice on the DR though.
    Exactly S3 shooting isn’t going to change the world.
  • Lord Temnir wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Nuking the priest's profile to worse than the captain's assured it's only ever worth using as a bsb-holder on altar. It's not like Captains see that much play themselves. (Getting rid of cult weapons as choices didn't help much either).

    Honestly, the right solution here is to streamline the Captain and Priests into one profile. Give captain Cult Legate and Altar as upgrades that require a cult choice. Now we only have to deal with one overpriced profile instead of two.

    With the disappearance of cult weapon choices from the priest, there's literally no reason to keep it as a separate choice.
    As much as I typically agree with your ideas, in this case I must disagree.
    The design team likes cults and we will not change it by persistent complaining. Making priests super-cheap does not solve anything. As I mention earlier, we should embrace cults, fully, and gain strong rewards:

    1. Different army composition (cult dependent)
    2. special rules
    3. super champions for infantry (cult specific skills)

    I have posted my ideas on a reworked Olaron- and Nabh-cult. I am still working on improvements for Cadaron and Yema.

    Both Gods are an aspect of the same one God. The one is the Hunter, the other the Tempter. This should reflect in the playstyle.

    I can imagine giving Yema a table-wide Vanguard move to better choose the unit match-ups, would be a way. On the other hand, giving Cadaron a cheap ambush option to reflect the hunting aspect, would be a way.

    TL;DR: Think outside the box. Embrace your cults.
    1. How would you know how the design team feels - you aren't on it?

    2. You can't have four cults and have cults be a major transformative feature of the book, because they get in each other's way and preempt choices for each other. Two was the limit - which is why full cult armies are significantly less common now than they were before Olaron and Cadaron.

    3. You're talking past me. Nothing about streamlining the priest with the captain prevents strong cult identities. The priest lost all its strong identity with the rework that made it terrible in combat. It's basically got your choice of two abilities: cult legate and altar - both of which could easily be captain options (with cult membership required).

    Despite only 2 cults, 1.0's cult priest had much stronger cult identity, with access to cult weapons and cult specific special rules for both options. Getting rid of that stuff eliminated any justification for a separate unit entry.

    Now it's just a bad captain-level entry with an altar mount.

    4. This was thinking outside the box. Why have a separate entry solely for a mount choice and a special rule choice? Completely unnecessary complexity.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • noir wrote:

    Guys please please please post stuff like that in the feedback thread, it’s impossible for any ADT or ACS to read through 300 pages!
    I think we have? We're rehashing old territory here.

    Also, I've incorporated relevant stuff into my version of a DE rewrite, which I will happily share with the DE ADT when the team starts work. (And for which I should do a revision at some point here anyway).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • hah - we're at 277 pages long amigo! old territory is the new territory!!

    Squirrelloid wrote:


    noir wrote:

    Guys please please please post stuff like that in the feedback thread, it’s impossible for any ADT or ACS to read through 300 pages!
    I think we have? We're rehashing old territory here.
    Also, I've incorporated relevant stuff into my version of a DE rewrite, which I will happily share with the DE ADT when the team starts work. (And for which I should do a revision at some point here anyway).
    #freekillerinstinct - Killer Instinct for all Dread Elves!

    Current reigning #1 Dread Elf Kang in Australia, voted all-time best Dread Elf in the northern Sydney to Newcastle region by my peers, thanks guys
    :thumbup:
  • AFAIK I already posted on the complete blandness of the Cult Priest. Honestly I think the whole streamline is a disaster and the old Cult High Priest was much more flavourful, than the Cult Upgrades on Dread Princes. Right now, so much stuff got taken away, like the Cult Weapons (which in turn now don't make any sense anymore, as they could just be rules on DoY and DJ) that the Cult Priest entry itself is only a hollow shell anymore. As Squirreloid correctly said: It's a garbage Legate or an Altar Rider.

    The fact, that some Balance Board Members even publicly said, that Cult Legate is a strong rule (both absolutely and for its points cost) is only the Cherry on Top. I still don't know, if this was incompetence, a desperate move to avoid admitting a mistake, or a straight troll attempt.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • noir wrote:

    taking away the avatar from the altar
    When we did have the "call for input" on the Divine Altar for the 2.0 version, I always argued, that you need to take it away, so you can put more power into the synergy/buff element of it. Making the Altar so strong in combat in addition to providing an Aegis 4+ makes it a "do it all"-unit.

    Obviously the rules teams thought otherwise, which I think is a pity. I would much rather have a weaker combat, but cheaper and more buff-oriented entry. Removing the generic 4++ could also help balancing the on foot Priest much better. Right now, setting the Priest on Altar is just too good, as you get a ton of defensive stats for free. How can a fragile model like the Cult Legate ever compete with that?

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • noir wrote:

    Imo the mess could be solved by taking away the avatar from the altar. Old statline cult priest should be okay then.
    wait, 1 more attack on the cult priest made the altar too good... really? 1 attack? Which is paid for by higher chassis cost on the priest? I disbelieve.

    If the avatar comes off the altar, the price would need to drop significantly. The total offense of the Altar isn't out of line with its price, and there would be substantial resistance to making it cheaper I imagine. (Effectively, the nature of the buff creates a minimum price floor. It needs the stats to justify that price, but it can't go below the price floor and be allowed to have as effective an area buff).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • DarkSky wrote:

    Removing the generic 4++ could also help balancing the on foot Priest much better.
    Competitively, this would make people switch armies.

    The game just doesn't support expensive characters with no defenses. 500-1200 points tied up in 3-6 wounds just doesn't work without ways to hide/save/regrow/etc...
  • Cam wrote:

    it would ruin my model.
    So, if the Avatar doesn't exist as a model in the rules, the model is ruined? Why is that so? Why can't the statue on the Altar be just a statue? Why does it have to be a moving avatar with attacks?

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Competitively, this would make people switch armies.
    Of course, the Altar would need to be changed and not just straight out nerfed. My main piont is, that the Altar provides EVERYTHING the Cult Priest as a synergy character might want. 18'' BSB bubble → check; defensive upgrades → check; offensive capabilities → check; great synergy → check; option to use magical banner, because other equipment isn't necessary → check. How on earth should a Cult Legate compare to this? The Altar provides just about everything, plus the some rules on War Platform and unit size means, that some downsides for Towering Presence are already avoided like +1 to hit of cannons.

    If I think what has to change in order to have Cult Legate and Altar Rider at comparable power level AND Cult Legate BSB and Captain BSB at comparable power level I can't come up with something. And don't even ask about Cult Legate as non-BSB, because then you compete with equal points on non-core troops (currently about three times as efficient) and the Assassin.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    noir wrote:

    Imo the mess could be solved by taking away the avatar from the altar. Old statline cult priest should be okay then.
    wait, 1 more attack on the cult priest made the altar too good... really? 1 attack? Which is paid for by higher chassis cost on the priest? I disbelieve.You have to pay 60 points more now for something that was in base stats previously. It really was too good.
    If the avatar comes off the altar, the price would need to drop significantly.
    What about this - we could try to make the altar similar to the new sentinel, a weak, resiliant model that provides huge buffs to the army(in this case, 4 magic dice almost every turn). Maybe something that ties to our offensive magic(like increased range for models around it, or the ability to reroll the number of hits for dmg spells, like second awakening in VS), or something like the Casket, but lowering the dispell casts. Of course he would retain his blessings(tho they may change). This would make him into a powerful support unit that would be the centerpiece of the army.
    Or, just go all out and make him standard, lower his price by 200 points and get rid of all of his combat power(leaving only the priest on it).
  • Cam wrote:

    DarkSky wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    it would ruin my model.
    So, if the Avatar doesn't exist as a model in the rules, the model is ruined? Why is that so? Why can't the statue on the Altar be just a statue? Why does it have to be a moving avatar with attacks?
    Who said I use the GW cauldron model?
    Who said I assumed that? I only assumed you are using a model with a representation of the Avatar on it, otherwise your statement makes little sense to me.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Lord Temnir wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Nuking the priest's profile to worse than the captain's assured it's only ever worth using as a bsb-holder on altar. It's not like Captains see that much play themselves. (Getting rid of cult weapons as choices didn't help much either).

    Honestly, the right solution here is to streamline the Captain and Priests into one profile. Give captain Cult Legate and Altar as upgrades that require a cult choice. Now we only have to deal with one overpriced profile instead of two.

    With the disappearance of cult weapon choices from the priest, there's literally no reason to keep it as a separate choice.
    As much as I typically agree with your ideas, in this case I must disagree.The design team likes cults and we will not change it by persistent complaining. Making priests super-cheap does not solve anything. As I mention earlier, we should embrace cults, fully, and gain strong rewards:

    1. Different army composition (cult dependent)
    2. special rules
    3. super champions for infantry (cult specific skills)

    I have posted my ideas on a reworked Olaron- and Nabh-cult. I am still working on improvements for Cadaron and Yema.

    Both Gods are an aspect of the same one God. The one is the Hunter, the other the Tempter. This should reflect in the playstyle.

    I can imagine giving Yema a table-wide Vanguard move to better choose the unit match-ups, would be a way. On the other hand, giving Cadaron a cheap ambush option to reflect the hunting aspect, would be a way.

    TL;DR: Think outside the box. Embrace your cults.
    1. How would you know how the design team feels - you aren't on it?
    2. You can't have four cults and have cults be a major transformative feature of the book, because they get in each other's way and preempt choices for each other. Two was the limit - which is why full cult armies are significantly less common now than they were before Olaron and Cadaron.

    3. You're talking past me. Nothing about streamlining the priest with the captain prevents strong cult identities. The priest lost all its strong identity with the rework that made it terrible in combat. It's basically got your choice of two abilities: cult legate and altar - both of which could easily be captain options (with cult membership required).

    Despite only 2 cults, 1.0's cult priest had much stronger cult identity, with access to cult weapons and cult specific special rules for both options. Getting rid of that stuff eliminated any justification for a separate unit entry.

    Now it's just a bad captain-level entry with an altar mount.

    4. This was thinking outside the box. Why have a separate entry solely for a mount choice and a special rule choice? Completely unnecessary complexity.
    1. Interpretation of the things I have seen and read on this forum.

    2. You can but it will be more work. That's why I was suggesting bigger separation and limitations depending on the cult you pick, thus strongly rewarding cult-lists but limiting non-cult units to a minimum in cult-armies and maximally limiting cult units in secular armies. Consequently it is possible to work-out as you keep the same units, but split the problem into smaller packages, which you can solve separately. The imbalance originating from this simplification can be then treated easily by minute point adjustments.
    In many cases the game is already pretty balanced, TBH, so I trust in the abilities of the RT to do it right and be well capable of such a task, but being overwhelmed by the complexity of the problem in case of a full army book.

    3. I agree, except for the little detail, that the one is a buff-character, the other a fighter/LD9 caddy. I did not say anything about not re-introducing cult weaponry. And before I hit a nerve -again- I want to stress, that I agree that we need to change the cult-priest to something more survivable and flavourful and that I also agree with improving the base cult-priest.
    Home Brew: Sea Guard (~HBE)

    Sea Guard