Dread Elves LAB Design guidelines Feedback thread

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!

  • Dread Elves LAB Design guidelines Feedback thread

    Good evening ladies!

    Im really happy to announce that the first draft of the dread elves LAB Design Guidelines is finished and I’ve got the honour to share them with you! However these are not set in stone yet and we would like YOUR feedback regarding them. Iirc RT designed these guidelines, maybe with a little bit of help but now the project needs you to see what exactly is liked what is not liked and if something should in your opinion change.

    However: NO SPECIFICS. We’re not designing units here but determin the very ground rules. So please leave your weapons at home.

    Without further ado let’s jump right in!

    And guys as usual please be nice and modest. Criticism needs to be constructive!


    fjugin wrote:

    Here is the first version of the guidelines:

    Display Spoiler

    Dread Elves Army Book Design Guideline

    General Information
    This guideline is meant to convey a common understanding of how the project envisions the Dread Elves (DE) army book to be designed. This document is split into several parts, and below you find a short description about every layer:
    • Game Level: Racial aspects - what does it mean to be an elf / dwarf / undead / ... (these are shared between armies and create a background link between different factions of the same race without diluting the uniqueness of the specific armies); in this layer racial descriptions can be found which are shared among different books.
    • Army Level: Overarching army specific aspects shared by most units - these traits should actively be incorporated in as many units as possible. Furthermore basic equipment and weaponry are defined as well as play styles which should be actively supported by the army book designers.
    • Intra-Army Level 1: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise and require different design profiles to be captured adequately.
    • Intra-Army Level 2: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise but are already covered by higher level design layers (these themes are within the already existing Guidelines but make out an important part of the appeal and uniqueness of any given book and therefore deserve special attention. Note: This layer should be actively expanded during the conceptual phase of the book.
    Note: The design layers follow the principle of Lex specialis derogat legi generali meaning that in the case of contradicting guidelines the more specific takes precedence.

    A. Game Level Design Guidelines
    A.1 Racial Background Description - Elves
    Elves are generally considered elite troops which are skilled, fast, disciplined and have (in-line with other elfs) low resilience. DE differentiate themselves from other elves through close quarter oriented bloodlust and should have rules that support doing damage at close quarters.





    B.1 Army Composition
    The army consists of a mix of infantry, cavalry, chariots and monstrous units and should generally convey a feeling of a very militaristic race. It is the most close combat specialist army of the elfs, centred around R&F close combat elf units which are supported by mobile short short-ranged shooting, and by single-model and small shock troops. The army should be very good at playing MMU / MSU with R&F troops (and less emphasis on light troops and skirmishers which are supporting elements). R&F (esp. close combat) troops are very important for DE and are the backbone of the army.

    The army should feel brutal, ruthless, cunning and makes most of its points in close quarter fights.

    The monstrous parts of the book are close combat oriented units. Slaves are used in an economic context and do not partake in regular battles.

    Main play styles use small- or mid-sized infantry combat oriented blocks, with support from shooting and/or single models or small shock troops (e.g. cavalry). Viable playstyles could also be where the monster-component of this set-up is increased and does a significant part of the heavy lifting.

    Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle.

    B.1.2 Common Equipment
    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    The standard small arms fire weapon of this army is the repeater crossbow which has proven its use as an efficient tool to stifle slave revolts due to the ability to fire a high amount of shots in a short timeframe.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Being an elven race the army can generally be described as very elite. Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army. Note that DE use their slaves only for their economy and not in battle.

    This should have the following in-game impact; models should have high average eliteness, and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf army. Overall dread elves should not feel more or less elite than other elves.

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is 750 points instead of 1000).

    B.2 Special Deployment
    Special deployment is not an important strategy for the army. A few units with special deployment rules (vanguard, scout, ambush etc) could exist, especially where this is normal for the type of unit (e.g. “fast cav”). Make sure army is no where close to being top 5 in this regard. Here number of units with access to this is important, but also the availability of these units, as well as how impactful those units are. Special deployment should be on few units and only on units with small game impact.

    B.3 Movement
    Typical elf speeds with a special emphasis on playing aggressively towards the enemy and enabling close quarter fights. I.e. charge range and speed forward towards the enemy should be more emphasized than lateral movement.

    Lateral movement is decent in (some) shooty units, but limited in combat units. Combat units are primarily ranked up blocks with limited maneuverability. Full on avoidance armies should not be possible. For this reason combat units with fly are limited in numbers, speed and game-impact (i.e. avoid expanding on flyers when updating the book).

    B.4 Leadership
    Leadership on troops is above game-wide average but not as good as dwarves, i.e. basic elven discipline where most units have dis8 and a few elite units have dis9.

    Dread elves have strong leaders with top-tier commanding presence abilities. General and BSB are helpful but not required (which is important to enable CC centric MMU / MSU builds), i.e. players are rewarded for keeping units inside discipline bubble, but having some units outside should not be impossible.

    The army should feel disciplined and militarily organised.

    B.5 Magic
    DE focus on a strong offensive casting - both ranged damage as well as CC support. DE spells have high in-game impact and they have above average capabilities to get the spells they want through enemy magic defense.

    Ranged damage and hexes followed by augments are the primary magical tools used in warfare. They are good at casting spells, but there should not be tools beyond the ones the BRB offers to defend against enemy casting.

    Path access should be the same as in current book.


    B.6 Shooting
    Shooting is a supporting tool which generally is mobile and short-ranged. All weapons should have clearly below average range for their types. The task of the shooting is to support the close combat part of the army. Whereas bolt throwers are the only truly stationary element of a DE military they serve in conjunction with the mobile hunting chariots a crucial purpose - offering ranged support against high priority threats which are generally harder to engage with rank and file close combat troops due to their lack of manoeuvrability.

    DE shooters generally must get close and personal to fully utilize their shooting capabilities. Shooting units should not break the overall combat focus of the army. This is achieved by shooters being decent close combat units that don't shy away from charging if the opportunity arises. This could be represented for instance by above average access to melee weaponry on shooting units, or by the nature of the units themselves (e.g. shooty chariots).

    Shooting should be supporting the close combat elements of the book - a shooting avoidance play style similar to SE should not be possible. Similarly, gunline playstyles cannot be possible playstyle for this army as it uses shooting only as a supporting tool, not as main damage dealers.

    Shooting for this army should have the following themes clearly represented;
    • short ranged,
    • maneuverable,
    • high volume of mediocre* shots, and
    • units can enter combats
    *this means average or below average aim, strength and ap for the weapon’s type, but average or above average number of shots for the weapon’s type.

    B.7 Close Combat
    As the CC specialists among the three elf races, DE offers a wide variety of close combat troops (shock troops / troops for prolonged combats / specialised troops intended for specific targets). DE have easy access to CC centric special rules as well as above average elf level CC stats (remeber that the average elf should not be more elite, so increase in combat abilities need to be compensated elsewhere).
    Elf and non-elf (beasts and monsters) can all be divided into one of these 3 categories.

    • Shock troops are frontload focused units. They have rules which support a peak damage output in the first round of combat or when charging (hatred, battle focus in the first round of combat, etc.). These troops are typcially not able to sustain prolonged fights either because of their lack in defensive capabilities (glass cannons) or because of the significant drop in damage in subsequent rounds of combat (e.g. chariots).


    • Grinding units. Primarily CC academy units, who due to their inter-unit-synergies and higher body count, are especially well equipped for prolonged combats as they offer a continuous source of damage with the ability to sustain damage to a higher degree. These units should have smaller focus (if any) on higher damage output first turn of combat, and instead use more even damage output. Note that these are decent grinding units in an elven context. Next to a dwarf units they should still feel fragile.


    • Close combat specialists are troops which excel against dedicated targets but which are not able to exercise their full potential against other troops. Specialised troops reward players who create situations where they are fighting what they are meant to fight.


    As the most close combat specialist elf army, DE need to offer a wide spectrum of different close combat units which enable players to tailor their playstyle around the flavour of close combat unit that they prefer. The army must not feel one-dimensional in regards to its close combat options (e.g. not only glass cannon units) and the close combat units should have an explicitly different in-game role/feeling to them.


    B.8 Defensive Capabilities
    Elves are limited to resilience 3, and don’t use much of armour (eg plate). Monstrous and mounted units may have higher resilience, but should not have above average for their types. The army should feel elven, and low resilience and overall fragile troops helps with this.

    Although the troops are elite and generally well equipped for their respective troop type, armour is often not a major defensive tool for non-mounted troops. Armour should be average or below average, no where near top5, but also not bottom5 in the game. Avoid enabling the following:
    - Good armour in core (e.g. 4+ infantry, 2+ save cavaly)
    - Very easy access to 1+ save on characters
    - Close to whole armies with 2+ save

    DE defensive abilities are often tailored to their close quarter fighting theme. For example close combat centric special saves and avoiding to-be hit at (very) short range or in close combat could be themes for DE defensive capabilities. Any defensive capabilities above normal elven standards should clearly follow this theme.

    DE should have weak protection against long ranged weaponry, which contributes to the inherent feeling that players actively want to play aggressively towards the enemy - furthermore the defensive capabilities tailored to close quarter fights create an additional incentive to play aggressively. Although the army has above elf-average defensive capabilities in close quarters, this does not mean that it is top tier tanky in game wide terms.

    B.9 Chaff
    DE have average chaff. This means that a typical DE army should not have exceptional amounts of chaff, nor exceptionally optimal chaff. Avoid (true) chaff in core (170+pts fast cav is not considered "true chaff"). Avoid making special chaff too focused on chaffing. Compared to old book this means we should not make harpies into a more optimal choice as pure chaff. Give harpies some alternative roles to make sure they donät become optimal as only chaff.

    B.10 Synergies
    Synergies which support the close quarter fighting nature is a defining trait of the army. Synergies in general should support the MMU/MSU play style which tends to play wide. Synergies should be seen as a tool to incorporate important background driven subthemes for the army's identity in the book.

    Synergies must not enable the creation of powerful deathstars. This can be achieved by limiting the base power of units, and/or limiting the amount of stacking of synergies that can be done.

    There are three main providers of synergies:

    B.10.1 Inter-unit-synergies - Academy
    Academy units are troops which are trained to fight together in order to maximise their potential. This background interaction should be translated into inter-unit-synergies in the book. I.e. Academy synergies should amplify academy units efficiency and showcase that they have tried together.

    B.10.2 Synergy providing models: Cults
    The providers of cult-related synergies is religious symbols (shrines, priests, supernals etc) that improve religious conviction of the followers, or provide some sort of divine intervention. In game, this is represented by cult-related symbols providing buffs to their or nearby units.
    Each cult should offer a unique twist representing its background and defining the corresponding cult troops in their nature. Beyond providing synergies to followers of the same God, what cult someone belongs to should have very small, if any, game impact. I.e. the importance of cults in-game should be scaled down compared to the old book. Note that cults should only spread these synergies to followers of the same cult.

    B.10.3 Movement and discipline: Monster handlers
    The interaction between monstrous units and their handlers. Note that the DE society is the most warfare focused elf society in the T9A setting. The degree of formalised military training, its economic implication (raiding/slavery) and the spiritual diversity (cults) offer unique opportunities to incorporate synergistic elements in the army. This source of synergy should showcase handlers’ abilities to control monsters, primarily repressed by increased discipline- and movement-related capabilities.

    C. DE Intra Army Level 1 - sub-factions
    All entries in the dread elf army can be divided into one of the following sub-factions;

    C.1 Cults
    In-game, cult troops differentiate themselves primarily through the synergy providing models.
    Note that the importance of cults in-game should be scaled down compared to old book.

    C.2. Academy units
    The bulk of most elf armies. Most core units are academy units. In-game, academy units differentiate themselves primarily through the inter-unit synergies.

    C.3. Monsters and handlers
    All kinds of captured and trained monsters and beasts. Ridden, unridden, herded, in units, and so on. This is an area where the book should be expanded. The inclusion of monsters and beasts should be a defining trait that makes DE stand out from other elf armies. However, be careful to not create overlap with units existing in other elf armies, as this is intended to differentiate de from other elf armies. Think about how to make room in the book for this area to be expanded.

    In addition to monsters and beasts, de also have capturers and controllers of said monsters. There are two separate entities. Capturers specialize in seeking and incapacitate beasts. Controllers specialize in making sure already captured and trained beasts perform as intended on the battlefield. Sometimes controllers and beasts are combined into a single model, such as a ridden beast.

    Note that captured sentient beings do not belong in this category, as they would be slaves and not used on the battlefield.

    C.4. Corsairs
    A small separate sub-faction. Should have limited number of different units (e.g. 1.-2 units). Corsairs should have clearly different roles than any of the other subaction’s units.



    The post was edited 1 time, last by noir ().

  • In theory it looks ok, but the designers should understand that r3 4+ save RNF aren't going to be able to go toe to toe with other melee races as well as make it across the field vs shooting races. There is a reason armies like HBE don't even field swordmasters at all, let alone MSU swordmasters. There has to be some sort of synergy/buff/support/special rule(s) unique to DE (that HBE and SE don't have) that allows this playstyle to work.


    The only thing I don't agree with is characters not having easy access to 1+ save. That should be part of the army's identity.
  • ninepaces wrote:

    In theory it looks ok, but the designers should understand that r3 4+ save RNF aren't going to be able to go toe to toe with other melee races as well as make it across the field vs shooting races. There is a reason armies like HBE don't even field swordmasters at all, let alone MSU swordmasters. There has to be some sort of synergy/buff/support/special rule(s) unique to DE (that HBE and SE don't have) that allows this playstyle to work.


    The only thing I don't agree with is characters not having easy access to 1+ save. That should be part of the army's identity.
    Very sound feedback! My opinion as well.

    However there are a couple of possibilities: no access to a 4+ only counts for core units if I remember correctly! Also there can be mechanics however these are only supposed to work in short ranged. As it is planned at the moment (I asked RT) there is no definitive no to some kind of mechanic to be prevented from getting shot. So please keep it coming i hope force wide consensus on this matter here in the community!!
  • I'm going to be honest, 5+ or 4+ is mostly a negligible difference.

    Also, how much should we expect the current DE book to change?

    Also, could you give a sample army roster of what you envisage? Just a generic rundown of what you think a competitive roster will look like, For example:

    -hero on peg
    -mage on foot
    -bsb on peg
    -5 fast cav
    -3x15 core infantry
    -4x12 elite infantry
    -2 monsters
    -2 chariots
    ????
  • Seems the plans are to continue the cult mess instead of streamlining the cults and do an additional auxiliary book of cults.
    Cult with 1-2 units and non ridden altar. Priest as a charakter. In cult army there is room to differentiate.

    And better plan for corsairs would be to include them in the academic part of the army instead of making a sub part of the army. #

    And I am realy curious how the short range shooting and CC abilities will work. Current corsairs have this concept and it seems to end in very overpriced models.


    And the background link (very interesting) is limited access only.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by berti ().

  • berti wrote:

    And the background link (very interesting) is limited access only.
    That is intentional since these same guidelines are shared with the internal teams. It is a link to the internal wiki for background writers and designers which contains factual information. :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • I generaly share the view, some details :


    1) Main play styles use small- or mid-sized infantry combat oriented blocks, with support from shooting and/or single models or small shock troops (e.g. cavalry). Viable playstyles could also be where the monster-component of this set-up is increased and does a significant part of the heavy lifting.

    => I would have prefer if the priority was mid-sized then small sized (with an average of 20 model count and 10-12 as a goal). I will personnaly fell sad if the game tend to make play the smallest unit possible along solo units (chariots / monsters / mounted characters).


    2) Ranged damage and hexes followed by augments are the primary magical tools used in warfare. They are good at casting spells, but there should not be tools beyond the ones the BRB offers to defend against enemy casting.
    Path access should be the same as in current book.

    => Divination is augment focused, weird to see this, while with a cult heavy theme Thaumaturgy is not named (and is damage/hex centered far better than alchemy or cosmology)


    3) DE shooters generally must get close and personal to fully utilize their shooting capabilities. Shooting units should not break the overall combat focus of the army. This is achieved by shooters being decent close combat units that don't shy away from charging if the opportunity arises. This could be represented for instance by above average access to melee weaponry on shooting units, or by the nature of the units themselves (e.g. shooty chariots).

    => Agreed a lot :)


    4) As the most close combat specialist elf army, DE need to offer a wide spectrum of different close combat units which enable players to tailor their playstyle around the flavour of close combat unit that they prefer. The army must not feel one-dimensional in regards to its close combat options (e.g. not only glass cannon units) and the close combat units should have an explicitly different in-game role/feeling to them.

    => Agreed too.


    5) DE defensive abilities are often tailored to their close quarter fighting theme. For example close combat centric special saves and avoiding to-be hit at (very) short range or in close combat could be themes for DE defensive capabilities. Any defensive capabilities above normal elven standards should clearly follow this theme.

    => Seems good to me.


    6) C.4. Corsairs
    A small separate sub-faction. Should have limited number of different units (e.g. 1.-2 units). Corsairs should have clearly different roles than any of the other subaction’s units.


    => Meh. As the guideline is clear that special deployment won't be able (I don't care personnaly) or with very limitation (I can see a vangard (6") but things like ambush will be forbidden : please don't make option that can be taken only if X and Y and only with the Z option... this is not a good design).
    As said before in this thread, merge them with academic part of the army, there is already too much "factions", and the fluff suggest they are trained at the academy too, so it fit well. Because in fact all the DE unit mainly take the see to fight, so finally they are more the ship crew that join fight more than the primary raiders (all parts of the DE army are raiders !).
    1 - Start of the Charge Phase (and start of the Player Turn)
    2 - The Active Player chooses a unit and declares a Charge
  • Minidudul wrote:

    => Divination is augment focused, weird to see this, while with a cult heavy theme Thaumaturgy is not named (and is damage/hex centered far better than alchemy or cosmology)
    IMO I think Shamanism fits better in a DE army than Divination. I will give Divination and Occultism only for Priest.

    That is all
    The Al-Qassar Sultanates (Homebrew)
    Halflings (Homebrew)
    Silexian Goblins (Homebrew)
    Feral Orcs (Homebrew)
  • berti wrote:

    Seems the plans are to continue the cult mess instead of streamlining the cults and do an additional auxiliary book of cults.
    Cult with 1-2 units and non ridden altar. Priest as a charakter. In cult army there is room to differentiate.


    You should read the guidelines more carefully; the cult mess is not about to be kept cause it clearly states that there are no downsides to be implemented for belonging to another cult. You just don’t profit by cult rules; downsides are disliked.

    And better plan for corsairs would be to include them in the academic part of the army instead of making a sub part of the army. #

    And I am realy curious how the short range shooting and CC abilities will work. Current corsairs have this concept and it seems to end in very overpriced models.


    And the background link (very interesting) is limited access only.
  • Giladis wrote:

    berti wrote:

    And the background link (very interesting) is limited access only.
    That is intentional since these same guidelines are shared with the internal teams. It is a link to the internal wiki for background writers and designers which contains factual information. :)
    Well, Infernal Dwarves got a bunch of background info in their guidelines release that was public.

    How are we supposed to properly review guidelines without some background information to provide some perspective? Currently we can only look at this from a gameplay perspective.

    It's hard to give anykind of 'feeling' response with out the fluff.
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    berti wrote:

    And the background link (very interesting) is limited access only.
    That is intentional since these same guidelines are shared with the internal teams. It is a link to the internal wiki for background writers and designers which contains factual information. :)
    Well, Infernal Dwarves got a bunch of background info in their guidelines release that was public.
    How are we supposed to properly review guidelines without some background information to provide some perspective? Currently we can only look at this from a gameplay perspective.

    It's hard to give anykind of 'feeling' response with out the fluff.
    Ah Common Peacy don’t be that guy. Just review it as it is and we try to squish out some background. However this probably won’t be fast.
  • First of all. Did I miss anything, or there is a precedent that the army should the same with, little bit of there, little bit of here? No Hellmaw crazyness?


    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Reducing models count is rly dependable on the new defensive rules. Atm, I tried to field rly "dark elvish army" - CoB, huge blocks of BoNs, Judges, Cavalry, stuff. The army was dependable on high model counts on elite units (25+), to be able to sustain. So carefully about the numbers reducing.
    And it would mean we need support attacks of two. Or something similar to WDG.

    B.2 Special Deployment
    Imho, best defence is ofence; beeing able to get special deployments to decimate opponents machines could be esential. I would reconsider.

    B.6 Shooting
    Below average range for some support before we enter combat... to achieve that, we need that at least 24range. 18range means placing our support shooting for an easy counter charge. It also means, we will shoot once, or not at all, if we are out of the range.,, before the bulk gets into CC.
    Shooting units beeing able to fight - not unlike ID - thats inspiring.

    B.8 Defensive Capabilities
    True that if we wanna have rnf character models, they should definately be able to get 1+ easily, with R3.

    Hmm... is there a possibility for our army to get 5++ armywide in CC? :D. Or when 12inches to the enemy? (i know, u dont wanna specifics, but...)

    B.10.2 Synergy providing models: Cults
    Cult supernals. Sweet. Want that. No examples, but.... I love those models!
  • ferda wrote:

    First of all. Did I miss anything, or there is a precedent that the army should the same with, little bit of there, little bit of here? No Hellmaw crazyness?


    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Reducing models count is rly dependable on the new defensive rules. Atm, I tried to field rly "dark elvish army" - CoB, huge blocks of BoNs, Judges, Cavalry, stuff. The army was dependable on high model counts on elite units (25+), to be able to sustain. So carefully about the numbers reducing.
    And it would mean we need support attacks of two. Or something similar to WDG.

    B.2 Special Deployment
    Imho, best defence is ofence; beeing able to get special deployments to decimate opponents machines could be esential. I would reconsider.

    B.6 Shooting
    Below average range for some support before we enter combat... to achieve that, we need that at least 24range. 18range means placing our support shooting for an easy counter charge. It also means, we will shoot once, or not at all, if we are out of the range.,, before the bulk gets into CC.
    Shooting units beeing able to fight - not unlike ID - thats inspiring.

    B.8 Defensive Capabilities
    True that if we wanna have rnf character models, they should definately be able to get 1+ easily, with R3.

    Hmm... is there a possibility for our army to get 5++ armywide in CC? :D. Or when 12inches to the enemy? (i know, u dont wanna specifics, but...)

    B.10.2 Synergy providing models: Cults
    Cult supernals. Sweet. Want that. No examples, but.... I love those models!
    There is room for some craziness! It did say monster section can be evaluated and expanded. Overall I think these guidelines respect what we all think DE should be. Combat orientated elves!
    I think with the right rule set and synergies, we can really get some good results!
  • B.1.2 Common Equipment

    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local
    military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact
    that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    Sounds like a great use of Piercing resit on all that Armour. Shame it can't be implemented widespread in this edition.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU
    setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight
    this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are
    cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is
    750 points instead of 1000).

    So I guess on foot characters will still not be taken. As the only way to make them viable is to increase their attacks or buff the unit which is only really good in big units. ....in small units the character just becomes a Cowboy.
    Also, the main reason I currently take units of 30 - is too do enough damage AND break steadfast. Alot of enemy units out there have a bunch of synergies that make them REALLY good anvils which we currently have to thin out with shooting. ....which leads me to the next point.

    B.6 Shooting

    Similarly, gunline playstyles cannot be possible playstyle for this army as it uses shooting only as a supporting tool, not as main damage dealers.

    Does this mean super nerf for the 6 shots bolt thrower? ....if so then the army is defunct. You can't thin out enemy deathstars by feeding it MSUnits. Sure combo charges can work but that's hard to pull off when the enemy shoots all your MSU units. Which brings me to the next point:

    B.9 Chaff

    DE have average chaff. This means that a typical DE army should not have exceptional amounts of chaff, nor exceptionally optimal chaff. Avoid (true) chaff in core (170+pts fast cav is not considered "true chaff"). Avoid making special chaff too focused on chaffing. Compared to old book this means we should not make harpies into a more optimal choice as pure chaff. Give harpies some alternative roles to make sure they donät become optimal as only chaff.

    So let me get this right. The army can't manouver sideways, it can't really shoot, it doesn't have cheap chaff. So it basically pushes forward or does MSU avoidance/flee while trying to line up combo charges for maybe a 13-7 win if opponent doesn't have a shooting list. Or the opponent gets to use their 80pt chaff and shoot the dread elves to bitz.

    I must be missing something in T9A because it seems like the heavy shooting armies get cheap chaff and very effective chaff, while the armies that lack shooting get expensive chaff. It seems to be me that it should be the opposite as those cheap 80pt chaff buys you an extra round of shooting. I'm pretty smart but I'm no top table pro here, so please explain.


    -------------------------

    Currently this guideline suggests that Dread Elves will be getting a hard nerf to bolt throwers, dark riders lose shield option and go up 10pts, harpies become 170pts and get a marginal buff in order to get a 50/50 chance of killing non-dwarf artillery. In exchange, TowerGuard and Dread Judges get a 4+ armour save.
    ....at least you guys removed the old ASAW weakness to special saves.


    I can't help but compare this to the new DL book which might not have as much first round damage as a Dread Elf TowerGuard or Dread Judge unit but still has decent melee damage. They get very effective 18" shooting with the Hope Harvestor, and Bolt throwers in the form of Hereditary spell that actually has the magic power dice to cast multiples and then switch that power dice to buff spells when combat starts. And on top of all this they get 5+ aegis.
    DL can even take a 195pt Siren unit that can flee through an entire army with fearless.
    ...I won't mention that access to T5 infantry because in army cross comparisons you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm suggesting you take the DL book and make a list that looks like a dread elf list, then you can cross compare.


    I just don't see how this army works unless you cap units sizes at 20-25models and then cap the price of models at like 16pts each. ...and that's like 16pts each for a dread judge.


    Just a note: I got multiple armies so I don't mind shelving Dread Elves for a while. I had my fun rushing across the table, deleting newbs and getting 20-0 until I get to round 4 & 5 and get 0-20 by shooting lists.
    Even if your changes work, I see this army placing bottom tier until other armies like HE, DH, SE, EoS, VS get reworked to curb their shooting.

    -----------------------

    Edit: please give us some fluff so we can get some positive feedback going.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Peacemaker ().

  • Peacemaker wrote:



    So let me get this right. The army can't manouver sideways, it can't really shoot, it doesn't have cheap chaff. So it basically pushes forward or does MSU avoidance/flee while trying to line up combo charges for maybe a 13-7 win...
    @noir this is similar feedback to my first post in this thread (the first reply). Could you please some feedback about these concerns? Is there some mechanic we're missing?
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    B.1.2 Common Equipment

    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local
    military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact
    that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    Sounds like a great use of Piercing resit on all that Armour. Shame it can't be implemented widespread in this edition.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU
    setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight
    this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are
    cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is
    750 points instead of 1000).

    So I guess on foot characters will still not be taken. As the only way to make them viable is to increase their attacks or buff the unit which is only really good in big units. ....in small units the character just becomes a Cowboy.
    Also, the main reason I currently take units of 30 - is too do enough damage AND break steadfast. Alot of enemy units out there have a bunch of synergies that make them REALLY good anvils which we currently have to thin out with shooting. ....which leads me to the next point.

    B.6 Shooting

    Similarly, gunline playstyles cannot be possible playstyle for this army as it uses shooting only as a supporting tool, not as main damage dealers.

    Does this mean super nerf for the 6 shots bolt thrower? ....if so then the army is defunct. You can't thin out enemy deathstars by feeding it MSUnits. Sure combo charges can work but that's hard to pull off when the enemy shoots all your MSU units. Which brings me to the next point:

    B.9 Chaff

    DE have average chaff. This means that a typical DE army should not have exceptional amounts of chaff, nor exceptionally optimal chaff. Avoid (true) chaff in core (170+pts fast cav is not considered "true chaff"). Avoid making special chaff too focused on chaffing. Compared to old book this means we should not make harpies into a more optimal choice as pure chaff. Give harpies some alternative roles to make sure they donät become optimal as only chaff.

    So let me get this right. The army can't manouver sideways, it can't really shoot, it doesn't have cheap chaff. So it basically pushes forward or does MSU avoidance/flee while trying to line up combo charges for maybe a 13-7 win if opponent doesn't have a shooting list. Or the opponent gets to use their 80pt chaff and shoot the dread elves to bitz.

    I must be missing something in T9A because it seems like the heavy shooting armies get cheap chaff and very effective chaff, while the armies that lack shooting get expensive chaff. It seems to be me that it should be the opposite as those cheap 80pt chaff buys you an extra round of shooting. I'm pretty smart but I'm no top table pro here, so please explain.


    -------------------------

    Currently this guideline suggests that Dread Elves will be getting a hard nerf to bolt throwers, dark riders lose shield option and go up 10pts, harpies become 170pts and get a marginal buff in order to get a 50/50 chance of killing non-dwarf artillery. In exchange, TowerGuard and Dread Judges get a 4+ armour save.
    ....at least you guys removed the old ASAW weakness to special saves.


    I can't help but compare this to the new DL book which might not have as much first round damage as a Dread Elf TowerGuard or Dread Judge unit but still has decent melee damage. They get very effective 18" shooting with the Hope Harvestor, and Bolt throwers in the form of Hereditary spell that actually has the magic power dice to cast multiples and then switch that power dice to buff spells when combat starts. And on top of all this they get 5+ aegis.
    DL can even take a 195pt Siren unit that can flee through an entire army with fearless.
    ...I won't mention that access to T5 infantry because in army cross comparisons you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm suggesting you take the DL book and make a list that looks like a dread elf list, then you can cross compare.


    I just don't see how this army works unless you cap units sizes at 20-25models and then cap the price of models at like 16pts each. ...and that's like 16pts each for a dread judge.


    Just a note: I got multiple armies so I don't mind shelving Dread Elves for a while. I had my fun rushing across the table, deleting newbs and getting 20-0 until I get to round 4 & 5 and get 0-20 by shooting lists.
    Even if your changes work, I see this army placing bottom tier until other armies like HE, DH, SE, EoS, VS get reworked to curb their shooting.
    You’ve extrapolated every worst case scenario from these guidelines but it is just that. The guidelines provide every avenue to have successful combat lists. It recognizes needing some sort of short range protection, the removal of special saves restriction, and a possible expansion to the monster pack. It also recognizes the need to further distinguish the differences in our elite infantry.

    I find it about silly to threaten a shelfing when this is the feedback phase of the guidelines...
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    B.1.2 Common Equipment

    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local
    military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact
    that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    Sounds like a great use of Piercing resit on all that Armour. Shame it can't be implemented widespread in this edition.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU
    setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight
    this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are
    cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is
    750 points instead of 1000).

    So I guess on foot characters will still not be taken. As the only way to make them viable is to increase their attacks or buff the unit which is only really good in big units. ....in small units the character just becomes a Cowboy.
    Also, the main reason I currently take units of 30 - is too do enough damage AND break steadfast. Alot of enemy units out there have a bunch of synergies that make them REALLY good anvils which we currently have to thin out with shooting. ....which leads me to the next point.

    B.6 Shooting

    Similarly, gunline playstyles cannot be possible playstyle for this army as it uses shooting only as a supporting tool, not as main damage dealers.

    Does this mean super nerf for the 6 shots bolt thrower? ....if so then the army is defunct. You can't thin out enemy deathstars by feeding it MSUnits. Sure combo charges can work but that's hard to pull off when the enemy shoots all your MSU units. Which brings me to the next point:

    B.9 Chaff

    DE have average chaff. This means that a typical DE army should not have exceptional amounts of chaff, nor exceptionally optimal chaff. Avoid (true) chaff in core (170+pts fast cav is not considered "true chaff"). Avoid making special chaff too focused on chaffing. Compared to old book this means we should not make harpies into a more optimal choice as pure chaff. Give harpies some alternative roles to make sure they donät become optimal as only chaff.

    So let me get this right. The army can't manouver sideways, it can't really shoot, it doesn't have cheap chaff. So it basically pushes forward or does MSU avoidance/flee while trying to line up combo charges for maybe a 13-7 win if opponent doesn't have a shooting list. Or the opponent gets to use their 80pt chaff and shoot the dread elves to bitz.

    I must be missing something in T9A because it seems like the heavy shooting armies get cheap chaff and very effective chaff, while the armies that lack shooting get expensive chaff. It seems to be me that it should be the opposite as those cheap 80pt chaff buys you an extra round of shooting. I'm pretty smart but I'm no top table pro here, so please explain.


    -------------------------

    Currently this guideline suggests that Dread Elves will be getting a hard nerf to bolt throwers, dark riders lose shield option and go up 10pts, harpies become 170pts and get a marginal buff in order to get a 50/50 chance of killing non-dwarf artillery. In exchange, TowerGuard and Dread Judges get a 4+ armour save.
    ....at least you guys removed the old ASAW weakness to special saves.


    I can't help but compare this to the new DL book which might not have as much first round damage as a Dread Elf TowerGuard or Dread Judge unit but still has decent melee damage. They get very effective 18" shooting with the Hope Harvestor, and Bolt throwers in the form of Hereditary spell that actually has the magic power dice to cast multiples and then switch that power dice to buff spells when combat starts. And on top of all this they get 5+ aegis.
    DL can even take a 195pt Siren unit that can flee through an entire army with fearless.
    ...I won't mention that access to T5 infantry because in army cross comparisons you have to draw the line somewhere. I'm suggesting you take the DL book and make a list that looks like a dread elf list, then you can cross compare.


    I just don't see how this army works unless you cap units sizes at 20-25models and then cap the price of models at like 16pts each. ...and that's like 16pts each for a dread judge.


    Just a note: I got multiple armies so I don't mind shelving Dread Elves for a while. I had my fun rushing across the table, deleting newbs and getting 20-0 until I get to round 4 & 5 and get 0-20 by shooting lists.
    Even if your changes work, I see this army placing bottom tier until other armies like HE, DH, SE, EoS, VS get reworked to curb their shooting.

    -----------------------

    Edit: please give us some fluff so we can get some positive feedback going.
    Look Peacemaker. This is a first draft of the guidelines which is supposed to take feedback into account. instead of constructive criticism you give us a rant again. how is that gonna help? did you not read the 2 reminders i gave to keep it calm? "Threatening" to give up the army and pulling points out of thin air to prove your point hardly helps anyone not even yourself. Remain calm and try to be constructive. this is how it works here.

    So an example would be: Im afraid that the Boltthrowers Multishot version might get a nerf because in my opinion our army depends on it.


    Some of your points i don't even understand how to take them from these guidelines. for example: who talked about on foot characters? theres exactly nothing in this guideline that says anything about them. and this is normal as its supposed to be a rough guideline.

    Also: You do realize that these guidelines are supposed to give the Design Team a direction where to head towards? you do realize that the design team then is supposed to make MSU/MMU work?

    Please do me the favour and do not derail this thread into another rant. I really had enough of these during 1.3-2.0. You're not only make my life worse and yours but also you actively take care that we THE COMMUNITY gets taken less seriously. If you are in a bad mood then please don't punish us for this. Also your fluff-insight will be dependent on what we can manage to squeeze out. with this kind of behavior you are again actively working against it as the very reason the fluff is not published is that its not finished and people start to rant. I really hope you will manage to calm yourself and present some constructive feedback as this here is not what is needed. I always appreciated you as a community member don't make me change my mind please as your frustration will not have any positive outcome but will max make my work worse and my life harder.
  • ninepaces wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    So let me get this right. The army can't manouver sideways, it can't really shoot, it doesn't have cheap chaff. So it basically pushes forward or does MSU avoidance/flee while trying to line up combo charges for maybe a 13-7 win...
    @noir this is similar feedback to my first post in this thread (the first reply). Could you please some feedback about these concerns? Is there some mechanic we're missing?
    well this is no real feedback this is panicking. also ninepaces it is supposed to work like this: you give feedback about the guidelines, we ACS then report it to the higher ups and then the Guidelines will be fine-tuned. I mean basically its the same as now: we haven't got a huge strength on lateral movement, our chaff is not cheap as chips and our shooting is not the best either atm. and still our army at the moment does decently. im not saying that this is not going to change, all im saying is that this fear is not realistic. constructive criticism in that context could be: The guidelines don't seem to allow a good compensation for the lack of cheap chaff and small unit sizes and subpar shooting. However there needs to be a good compensation because currently big units are played due to the lack of defense against shooting high prices and overall fragility. I thus think we need good chaff clearing abilities/good mechanics to be able to grant a certain attack volume in close combat or whatever you suggest. just as an example. this we will bring forward then and see how it goes. the community is involved in the process.