Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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.

  • Highborn Elf ASAW has been admitted by RT to be poor by the community's standards, and WILL undergo review to fit the community's view of the army more. So right now it is the gunline-y ASAW that was given. Moving forward, it will be reviewed and changed into something more in line with the community's desires.
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • Fnarrr wrote:

    I liked that post for its entertainment value :D

    I'm not sure "I want to win everything" counts as an ulterior purpose.

    I liked the part where if @Furion wins its because he is lucky the best. He needs to start recording all his dice rolls in his battle reports, and then providing a % summary of each dice side rolled. Otherwise there is 0 value to them.
    Not only did you take what I said out of context, but you managed to further extrapolate on some delusional gap of commentary that isn’t there. This being said,

    I’ll go down your rabbit hole: if you don’t think that luck plays a factor in a game that relies on chance, and has a secondary mechanic that relies on chance ie: matchups; then you’re as woefully ignorant as your sweeping statements depict. Half of the skill of this game is the ability to limit chance taken against you, and turn the percentages in your favor through stratgey and tactics. However, chance can still underline a defining battlefield roll ie: 5,6, or 6,6 on dice on a charge, a unlikely overrun, a horrid combat roll on a charge, etc . . . in a key moment (exponetionally so for lists that roll less dice rolls per game).

    Leaning on strawman arguements, dripping hypocrisy, and sunk cost idealism while compounding blatant disregard for basic understanding of game fundamentals is a tell a tellomg sign. Laughing off inferrence that even good/elite players need luck sometimes is entirely all I need to know about your understanding of games of chance, and mehciancs -whether that be tabletops, TCGs, Poker, Go. Perhaps instead of trying to tell someone to foolishly “#L2P” said member should “gitgud” themselves first before holding the cracked egg in front of the class.

    Additionally, winning or losing with units/lists that are deemed great, or horrible is a telling sign for the data analytics on base profiles of whether units are internally balanced or otherwise. Not that the alphabet soup teams use a pricing structure, however a ulterior motive such as above could be viable. I’m sure a faux pro like yourself knows that already, and the question was just rhetorical. :thumbsup:

    Effectually, we’ll see who’s right in a month. I’m sure everyone will quickly adapt this skeleton as the go to list HBE. . . or maybe they won’t try to play hard-mode, and sacrifice unit synergy for niche toolbox effects that only the designer of the list through playtesting/preference may like (get the most use out of).

    I stand by my original analysis, and statement that his list is bad, and that if he wins best overall, or top of his team it’s because of his skill, role in team/matchups, and some luck to help along the way.

    pk-ng wrote:

    Thank you sir for the entertainment value.

    I actually took the effort to read the entire post

    Lots of points there (majority) I disagree but definitely there are some there I agree.

    I’m glad it was entertaining? :rolleyes:

    If you choose to disagree that’s fine.

    Regardless, being either ignorant, stubborn, or purposefully obtuse about basic HBE unit synergies is unbefitting of your normal discourse -especially for a prior book designer. If you’re insinuating that his list is good then perhaps the respect as a player I have for you, and my opinion of you can be changed yet. . .
    _________________________________

    Besides hyperbole, and meh chirps. I haven’t seen any evidence or even logical discourse that otherwise refutes what I’ve said.

    Furion wrote:

    Thanks for the response, I appreciate your effort.

    I don't think redundancy is something desireable in this game.

    I don't think that an extra chaff unit can be used effectively.

    Most of all, I don't think Dragon is comparable to WDG characters. Dragon is crap and is an element that is - in my opinion - just a little bettter than 24 white lions.

    It is true, that s6 is a problem. This is a problem in the entire army book. Every HE army has that weakness.

    Again, thank you for your time to write all this.
    You’re welcome(?). I’m justIfyfing my thoughts to group-think mentality that gets perpetuated too easily in these threads at times. Pureyvors of this thread asked me to justify my thoughts; I did.

    I disagree on the redundancy aspect.

    I should have been more precise (it’s what I get for typing before bed with disjunctive thoughts over three days) I believe role redundancy is a key component of this game. In fact the best lists in this game feature the best, most cost effective, multi-roled units a book can field up until a certain opportunity cost.

    Discovering what that opportunity cost threshold is is what separates good, and elite players from mediocre and bad. Understanding what role redundancy is needed in your list that will not only fit with your list, but the playstyle yo are trying this achieve, and preferences is paramount to reach a desirable end goal.

    I’m not comparing the Dragon to the aforementioned units in ability to earn its points back/conserve/abilities in the same fashion as those prior mentioned units. However, as a unit classification I would classify it in the same capacity as DPs, Scourages, Hypo Lords or Gryph Lords, etc. . . it’s a concentrated output on a mobile (mostly flying) platform that has a projected threat range. While other capabilities, movement abilities, etc . . . are different from the above for example they in function are similar. How you use them outside their standard design is player preference, and while they may try to share a similar role in your list as say 24 RH would (due to perhaps is ability to generate S6 attacks? Or likely other facets? I’m not a mind reader I clearly don’t know what your list is designed to do it’s conjecture.) I would disagree that they perform the same role on paper, or form function.

    Ergo, in my last post when I said “your dragon is free points” to lists that feature the aforementioned high concentrated output threats. Treating, and trying to use it as a 24 RH horde makes little difference to the opponent that sees it as a Dragon model. It’ll still lose in fights vs the aforementioned, still die to cannons, still give up 1/2 points for getting down to 1/4 wounds, etc . . .

    Also, not having extra chaff from my point of view doesn’t make a lot of sense. For a lost that features a majority of its strength output on the charge, and doesn’t want to be in combat for a extended period of time. It’s befuddling to me why more toolbox chaff units weren’t taken, or outright chaff.

    That’s an aspect of list building that plays into team role. Which I could try to infer what type of role you have. ( You have the ability to clear out a lot of chaff because your shooting is mainly all low strength, it can’t be used effectively elsewhere -barring mistakes) However, that’s a discussion I don’t want to get into, and frankly don’t care.

    Yes I agree that physically outside of equipping characters with a S7 enchantment or banner, it’s borderline impossible to gain access to S7 in HBE. Magic is the only realistic, and cost effective way. You could have magic and +1S or +1 to wounds spells at your finger tips for RH, or your characters (though I’m sure that would change the list). It’s not ideal without a Bsb though, never the less it’s still a weakness.
    I type on mobile so my spelling mistakes can hide that English is my native tongue. :write: :HE: :KoE:

    Evershade Gaming on YouTube
    youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

    theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog
  • I think you went down a whole different rabbit hole there ;)

    My point was, Furion aims to win. He doesn't hamstring himself by taking purposefully bad lists, not for ETC anyway. He has written his list the way it is because he believes it to be good.

    You are trying to say that he wins because of skill, and then you are trying to say he hasn't got the skill to evaluate the list he's written. That's the part I poked fun at. Writing a good list is part of being skillful.

    But thanks for the lecture on how luck works! We really will see a few things in a month :)
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Furion wrote:

    300 players, 5 man teams. DMP in Poland this weekend!
    Battle 1: vs Team Sweden and mighty Marcus, HE, his ETC roster, 20:0, team 55:45
    Battle 2: vs team Czarne Wrony, VS, 2x doomwheel, 2x lightning cannon, 2x abom, lightning rod, 2x hero on giant rat. 19:1, team 65:35 (cap)
    Battle 3: vs Team Ukraine, vs EoS, tank, cannon, cosmology, 40 imperial guard, 40 halberds, 2x20 spears, altar w locket of sunna. 20:0, team 65:35 (cap)

    Pick from last battle:
    I want to know how that HBE list lost 20-0 to you. That player must have entirely laid an egg, had horrid dice, or simply doesn't match your caliber (perhaps a mix of all three?). On paper I have no clue how he doesn't win let alone lose 20-0. He has you out ranged, out shot, and even a mobile Fireproof character that can zone your Phoenix, and Ryma Knights, RH block to deny board space to his war machines, and prevent your Dragon from walking to his lines.

    The middle VS 19-1 loss is curious as well. While not a perfect, that player does have answers for the Dragon, Phoenix, your Ryma Knights, and block that doesn't have Spear QC Prince.

    The last battle looks like a 15-5 or more pending on objective. The EoS list has no shooting besides a immobile cannon, and the Stank which can be danced around/dealt with by the very unit trying to shoot it down. x2 flying units running rampant on block troops with no way to catch them is a recipe for disaster.

    We'll see what happens at ETC. This seems like a good sign for you, and proving my synthesis at least partially right, and wrong.

    Fnarrr wrote:

    I think you went down a whole different rabbit hole there ;)

    My point was, Furion aims to win. He doesn't hamstring himself by taking purposefully bad lists, not for ETC anyway. He has written his list the way it is because he believes it to be good.

    You are trying to say that he wins because of skill, and then you are trying to say he hasn't got the skill to evaluate the list he's written. That's the part I poked fun at. Writing a good list is part of being skillful.

    But thanks for the lecture on how luck works! We really will see a few things in a month :)
    Now you're just inferring something that I didn't say (again).

    I don't think he doesn't have the skill to evaluate a list. I never once said that. That is just you interpreting meaning that isn't there. I think that his list is trash. How do those statements equate? Dissociative fallacy. There's a difference between those statements. Please don't confuse them.

    His playstyle may dictate that he requires those units. However, give that list to another experienced player, or even mediocre player, and they would get slaughtered in a majority of match ups. What works for the top percentage may not work for the majority of players. And as a result, in my eyes compared to the more cost effective tools available aren't quantifiable in the definition of "good" or "cost effective" for me. Does it mean that he can't evaluate units, or lists properly? Nope. Just that this particular list is bad in my mind, and compared to the meta. (When Jeff Jones made Grandsoil Psychics in 2014 for a YGO YCS and won, and no one else could replicate that the rest of the format did that make those cards all of sudden good? No. It just meant that he chose effectively for the meta; getting the matchups he needed, applied the skill, and some luck. I can use numerous TCG examples from MtG to Card Fight, etc. . . this is just an example.)

    (For example, most players here say that GW are trash. I however for one would include a unit of 5 in most of the competitive lists I would make (barring 60 shot x2 queen guard lists because as prior mentioned in my last point GW would not be worth their cost effectiveness at that point). The practically guarantee wins in shooting "battles" vs elves, and other heavy shooting lists is invaluable to me [not even touching on their toolbox playability].)

    You're welcome for the luck lecture!
    I type on mobile so my spelling mistakes can hide that English is my native tongue. :write: :HE: :KoE:

    Evershade Gaming on YouTube
    youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

    theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog
  • Guys, lets try and stay respectful, ok? No need for name calling or insults (either implied OR outright stated).


    PS. SOON, I will post my final evaluation of the Ring of the Pearl Throne, after getting several games in against several different opponents and armies. :)

    After this first Labor is completed, the second labor, Fleet Officer, will begin!
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • sidenote, assuming the navigators banner is going to stay, how big is the chance to change it thus it affects wizards


    Marcos24 wrote:

    @Aenarion43 ok no problem, just saying his statement “we’re supposed to get this strength if I remember correctly” is what I was addressing because there was nothing supporting that at all. If it wasn’t addressed, other people would simply carry on thinking theyre entitled to it in the future. Then when told, nope not quite, more rage occurs when the cause is a misunderstanding to begin with. That’s what I don’t want.
    I am not referring the poll or the ASAW which were said there are going to change. I always got the impression that the 9th age team stance was pushing HBE towards avoiding hits or special saves because they dont want to have that many armies having good armor. I am fine with HBE getting more armor though as they were in the 6th place in that category after all.

    or just let them be jack of all trades and have a variety of defensive options depending on which unit you field.


    Peacemaker wrote:

    I'm not sure it is. Flame Wardens and a 6+ on Knights of Reyma isn't a strength. It's a neutral.
    HBE ASAW arent in game yet and are going to change anyway :)

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

  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    My main issue with Parry is that it would
    a) Increase cost of characters (because now DS8 princes (10 w/ Dorac) and DS7 (9 with Dorac) Commanders.
    b) Not truly be useful (as most units would still require magical support to reach what they actually NEED for a benefit (5's to hit).
    a) enchanted items are very easy to change/tweak for balance.
    b) actually it creates usefulness for the army. Frost pheonix?
    it also gives a reason to cast those low level spells. Which also makes Master of spellcrafting better, and book of meladys better. Cast more spells that actually do something.

    And who's to say a cool synergistic item can't be made, like the DE ring of shadows. -1 off skill to unit in base contact.
    or create a synergy rule like if HBE engage enemy in flank/rear then enemy reduces their weapon skill. ....combined arms incentive!!!!
    ....make it a banner.

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    So the cost of characters goes up while the cost of units MAY go up . . . without seeing a significant benefit.
    hmm, maybe. They are still giving up regrouping and fear tests on minimized roll so I doubt any units would go up.
    character on foot might go up but not on a mount going solo. Ability to regroup is worth more than parry in that case.
  • "We will look at the HBE ASAW and then decide stuff accordingly" seems to be the official statement.
    You can try to read the tea leaves but it would be crazy to expect people to tell you how a review is going to end. Maybe they match the community, maybe they stick with what they have because all the alternatives are worse, maybe they figure out a brilliant new solution that isn't what the community wanted per so.

    Nobody knows, because the review hasn't happened.


    Anywho, my latest 2c: "Every Elf A Legend: 2W [and 2+A] per model". It threads the needle of adding shooting/magic missile resilience without going for a buff to Armour or R, makes it obvious why the ppm count is high and still isn't depressing to slog through (doing 2W feels better than doing 1W through a 4++).

    Background Team

  • Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    What works for the top percentage may not work for the majority of players. And as a result, in my eyes compared to the more cost effective tools available aren't quantifiable in the definition of "good" or "cost effective" for me
    These are two different things!

    Balance is done for the top end. The difference in curves would mean some armies may outperform others on the midtables, because the effort required differs.

    Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    I don't think he doesn't have the skill to evaluate a list. I never once said that. That is just you interpreting meaning that isn't there. I think that his list is trash.
    That doesn't make sense dude. Why would someone purposefully take a trash list?
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Battle 4, dwarven holds, 6 hold guardians vanguard, 24 slayers vanghard, 40 spears vanguard, 30 spears vanguard, 2x10 miners, 2x bombers, bsb lighting runes, lord s10 vs dragon. 19:1 and my team went on to play final battle on 1st table.

    Battle 5, undying dynasties, 2x5 snakes, 3x1 scorpion, 8 chariots, bsb chariot, king chariot, 2x fast cav, 20 skellies, divination master, cosmology adept, 10:10. Very unfortunate: I've lost the 1st turn roll, failed 3x charge on 11 swistride vs skellies with mages.

    In the end we finished on 4th position as a team. Ive made 88 points with my crappy roster.
  • Well done High Prince! Well done indeed.
    Please when you have the opportunity, post your army list again.
    I'd love some insight as to your mechanics on how you used some of your units against the different lists you batteled along the way.
    Which units you deemed fit for specific targets and not other targets. And which of your units you think may have under-performed for you.
    Until such time, revel in your Victories!
    Long live the HbE.
    Failure is not an option.
  • Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    pk-ng wrote:

    Thank you sir for the entertainment value.

    I actually took the effort to read the entire post

    Lots of points there (majority) I disagree but definitely there are some there I agree.
    I’m glad it was entertaining? :rolleyes:

    If you choose to disagree that’s fine.

    Regardless, being either ignorant, stubborn, or purposefully obtuse about basic HBE unit synergies is unbefitting of your normal discourse -especially for a prior book designer. If you’re insinuating that his list is good then perhaps the respect as a player I have for you, and my opinion of you can be changed yet. . .
    Seriously it was a decent write up. Most people write a bunch of meaningless stuff because they think more is merrier.

    I never said his list was good. I never said anything about his list I was just purely commenting on your post. So maybe you should stop looking for ideas / stuff that is not there?

    I mean I wrote 3 sentence none of which mention list so I don't know where you're getting the idea so suggest I think his list is good (or bad).

    *Edit
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns

    The post was edited 1 time, last by pk-ng ().


  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    Guys, lets try and stay respectful, ok? No need for name calling or insults (either implied OR outright stated).


    PS. SOON, I will post my final evaluation of the Ring of the Pearl Throne, after getting several games in against several different opponents and armies. :)

    After this first Labor is completed, the second labor, Fleet Officer, will begin!
    2nd this, chill out.

    cheers mod team.
  • Kapten Kluns wrote:

    Havent they said that no army should be the best in a single part of the game? Combat, shooting, magic etc etc since it would leave a lot of armies being kinda without appeal?
    My guess is that HbE will be among the 5 (or how many will have this strenght) best races in game.
    Or am I totally wrong?
    in a general sense, you are correct, however those armies that scored the highest in a category are given precedence.

    For magic that's us and SA, both voted 98/100 for magic strengths