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.

  • Fnarrr wrote:

    The success stories coming out dont revolve just around playstyle - on the contrary, there's a healthy mix.

    The one thing that does consistently get reported on is the learning curve; but that means those who bail on the army before it starts working are failing to hack it themselves, rather than missing the tools.

    I feel like this is a super-important post.


    Yes, HBE can win. In the hands of a top player (e.g. Dan) they just did.


    BUT.

    Steep learning curve. They are an unforgiving army. Mistakes will kill you.


    And that is a bad thing for an entire book to be. Because it means that average players can't play HBE and muddle along averagely - they just get smashed.


    In particular, the last page or two has popped up some interesting thoughts.

    Such as, people field 10 strong Lancer units. This works poorly - they need spare bodies to work. But people do it anyway.
    Why? Well, off the top of my head? 10 is a nice round number. Worse, HBE Lancers are 41 points per model for extra models. So if you run 12, it costs you 537 points (+command/magic banner if any).

    That's bad. It's unaesthetic and just annoying. 1ppm less for extra models would save at most 10 points per unit... but it would be so much better psychologically I think.

    Or better still, make a min-size-12 version of the unit. Give it a slightly different name if necessary - but don't let people shoot themselves in the foot by taking too small a unit. Force good list design on people.

    (best of all would be if Cavalry only need to be 4 wide to get rank bonus I think... but that's too big a revision now)

    That's what good game design looks like - not just providing tools, but also making sure people don't use them the wrong way and get frustrated.

    (This is also my main beef with MSU-costing: yes, sure, bigger units are better than small ones... but your average-to-bad player is more likely to go "okay, the game designers don't want me playing big units, I guess they have their reasons, I won't do it". Bigger units are actually *worth* the price, sure, but the psychology doesn't work out.)

    Background Team

  • elendor_f wrote:

    b) Elvish. I have been playing HE since 6th edition and I don't think any of the lists feel weird in the spirit of what HE means to me. I am having a hard time understanding the criticism from @Aegon and @Peacemaker. I did miss 8th edition but I don't think that is very relevant to this discussion.
    I guess the easiest way to explain this is for you to play DE and Wood elf in at least 8th edition and T9A. Then you should come to similar conclusions about the playstyle changes regarding the elf armies.

    Basically, when you make an army list with one elf army, go and make the same list in the other elf armies and see which ones come out better. Then you start to see problems with the HBE book.

    If you guys do this and still say it's fine then I guess myself and others are wrong. Which could be the case.
  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    Pfff

    As if every army doesn't have a stiff learning curve. To say that HBE is particularly badly off in that department is as close to a non-argument as it gets.
    Well mr. VC community support, I have switched from HBE to VC and the difficulty of using the army is significantly lower. After 5 VC games I took them to a local tournament and scored 60/60 VPs, then two games later I took them to DMP (300 man tournament) and scored most points in my team despite being a blocker.

    In my opinion there is a vast gap in learning difficulty between VC and HBE.

    edit: that is not to say that VC are in general ridiculously overpowered or easy mode army, but certainly there are lots of builds that are really forgiving and easy to pilot even for beginner players.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard

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

  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    Pfff

    As if every army doesn't have a stiff learning curve. To say that HBE is particularly badly off in that department is as close to a non-argument as it gets.

    Low body count and no mechanics that actively say "this is how you're supposed to play it". Like, you and I main VC - there, the nature of the entire army says "crowd into the bubble" and it's constantly reinforced mechanically and you can make a good list (not necessarily the best, but solid) by designing it to crowd into the bubble, stick together, and charge forwards.

    HBE? It works, but it's not designed to tell you how it works. It's the difference between new school video games having reminders pop up and tell you how to play competently and the old school "this is what the buttons do, off you go now". Sure, top players blow way past the newbie tips anyway - but they're there for everyone else.


    Plus, y'know, top players who swapped to HBE actually called out the "steep learning curve", which has to mean "relative to other armies in T9A".

    Background Team

  • New

    arwaker wrote:

    Please please please go to VC forum and tell their community that their army is strong and easy to play.

    It's not exactly easy - but when you screw up, I find it's usually pretty obvious in hindsight what your mistake was. (e.g. last tournament I punted a game by literally not thinking about the possibility of Kestrels charging my bunker. They charged my bunker and mugged my necromancers. This was utterly catastrophic, worse than losing mages normally... but also entirely my derp.)

    HBE, OTOH, are competent outside bubble, having light non-unwieldy shooting (so redeploying it can be more viable) and have a lot of movement. Kinda headachy.

    "Strong" and "Straightforward" aren't the same thing.

    Background Team

  • New

    This is a big discussion and I have limited time, so apologies for brevity.
    My thoughts are something like this:
    • Having some factions harder to use than others is fine: it kinda adds something and also is a little unavoidable
    • I personally think this has gone a fraction too far with HBE
    • Thus I would personally like FAB to maintain power level, but provide at least some builds that are easier to play
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D
  • New

    doublepost
    Why not hold elections for key seats? Oh! And direction of the game - that would also be hella cool :)

    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    For questions of tactics, The Savage Arts of Playtrolling

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

  • New

    Sorry to hear of yer descision @Aglion - seems apparent to me that some of the cheaper shots here are not aware of yer capabilities as a general.

    Happy hunting stormwinds - may the ill tides soon turn eh?

    Skàll,
    -H-
    Why not hold elections for key seats? Oh! And direction of the game - that would also be hella cool :)

    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    For questions of tactics, The Savage Arts of Playtrolling
  • New

    DanT wrote:

    This is a big discussion and I have limited time, so apologies for brevity.
    My thoughts are something like this:
    • Having some factions harder to use than others is fine: it kinda adds something and also is a little unavoidable
    • I personally think this has gone a fraction too far with HBE
    • Thus I would personally like FAB to maintain power level, but provide at least some builds that are easier to play

    fully agree, now to how its achieved without the rest of the community crying foul.

    Will be interesting.

    Personally I would tackle the inordinate amount of restrictions prevalent in the book. So many ifs, buts, ands and maybes mean that it's difficult to get into a list when you feel brick walled at almost every step
  • New

    Masamune88 wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    This is a big discussion and I have limited time, so apologies for brevity.
    My thoughts are something like this:
    • Having some factions harder to use than others is fine: it kinda adds something and also is a little unavoidable
    • I personally think this has gone a fraction too far with HBE
    • Thus I would personally like FAB to maintain power level, but provide at least some builds that are easier to play

    fully agree, now to how its achieved without the rest of the community crying foul.
    Will be interesting.

    Personally I would tackle the inordinate amount of restrictions prevalent in the book. So many ifs, buts, ands and maybes mean that it's difficult to get into a list when you feel brick walled at almost every step
    This doesn't solve the problem I want to solve.
    Which doesn't mean that I am against removing them, nor that I disagree with this a goal in-and-of itself, but it will not solve the problem I have identified.
    Right now I don't know how to solve said problem.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D
  • New

    It was about a year and a half ago but I did play a swordmaster deathstar to 2nd in a 60+ event but that was with the old fleet officer honour(honestly that being removed for the reasons it was made me lose a lot of faith in the community. It was one of the best and removed for being too bad?!?!). UK has always had a msu heavy metal with lots of SA and SE which limits the use of a big elite deathstar wearing paper.

    That said I could see a list with a pyro master, Moct bsb big block of swordmasters/lions and shooting/cav list working. The key is to win the ranged war so you get to pick your fights or at least not lose it to avoidance armies.
  • New

    berti wrote:

    Other armies also are unforgiving, that is nothing particuilar true for HbE.
    Make a mistake in deployment with dwarfs and you are also doomed.

    HbE have some rather specialized special units, if you clash with their main targets...you win, if not it get´s tough.
    But this is also true for a lot of other armies.
    Dwarfs have a really janky learning curve where due to the unwieldy / general slowness / vanguard, you make a disproportionately high number of game decisions before turn 1; which results in a big spike in performance once the players realise they have to plan pretty much all 6 turns before the game starts, and learn how to implement it (this is true for other armies too, but is very pronounced for DH)

    However, once you've made your decision and started turn 1, the actual execution of the game is a lot more straightforward, because your options are limited, regardless of whether its working or not.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • New

    DanT wrote:

    Masamune88 wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    This is a big discussion and I have limited time, so apologies for brevity.
    My thoughts are something like this:
    • Having some factions harder to use than others is fine: it kinda adds something and also is a little unavoidable
    • I personally think this has gone a fraction too far with HBE
    • Thus I would personally like FAB to maintain power level, but provide at least some builds that are easier to play

    fully agree, now to how its achieved without the rest of the community crying foul.Will be interesting.

    Personally I would tackle the inordinate amount of restrictions prevalent in the book. So many ifs, buts, ands and maybes mean that it's difficult to get into a list when you feel brick walled at almost every step
    This doesn't solve the problem I want to solve.Which doesn't mean that I am against removing them, nor that I disagree with this a goal in-and-of itself, but it will not solve the problem I have identified.
    Right now I don't know how to solve said problem.
    Agreed, it was just my personal first step towards fixing some of the issues the book has. I tend towards action with trial and error rather than over analyzing and trying to be perfect on the first try.

    It is a problem that needs looking at, it may not be the only problem, but it is a very visible one and one that could open up the design issues that are holding the book back by exposing the bones of the problem.

    It would be a good place to start.
  • New

    I will say this about the High Elf learning curve:
    I have noticed that alot of newer players like to pick high elves because they are shiny cool elves. And they want to play battleline type army with them like in the pictures.
    Perhaps this is because of geeddubs and their cheap starter set. Whatever the reason, this is what I see.

    So when you have the shiny battle line army that is actually the shinny move/flee/set up charges as their core mechanic and the army is priced that way in the points - you get players thinking the army sucks real bad. Throwing in the towl and switch armies to the ones that have a battleline like in the pictures or maybe they quit.

    This is one of the reason the army should be renamed. The players who love the playstyle will still play the army regardless if it is high elves or Sylvan elves or a new type of elf, while the ones attracted to shiny battleline will be able to get their high elf battleline army book and have fun.

    You don't get sylvan elf players expecting their archers and eternal guard to battleline. ...half of them don't even own any spear elves! They pick the army to run around. Even if they are bad at it and it takes them a long time to learn they stick with the army because it is what they wanted to play.
  • New

    Fnarrr wrote:

    berti wrote:

    Other armies also are unforgiving, that is nothing particuilar true for HbE.
    Make a mistake in deployment with dwarfs and you are also doomed.

    HbE have some rather specialized special units, if you clash with their main targets...you win, if not it get´s tough.
    But this is also true for a lot of other armies.
    Dwarfs have a really janky learning curve where due to the unwieldy / general slowness / vanguard, you make a disproportionately high number of game decisions before turn 1; which results in a big spike in performance once the players realise they have to plan pretty much all 6 turns before the game starts, and learn how to implement it (this is true for other armies too, but is very pronounced for DH)
    However, once you've made your decision and started turn 1, the actual execution of the game is a lot more straightforward, because your options are limited, regardless of whether its working or not.
    I agree in a sense with the caveat that dwarves, whilst they do have the above limitations to contend with, are incredibly forgiving of mistakes due to innate high Res, S, Arm and Dis. You can screw up and it wont cost you the game unless it was a mighty screw up.

    HBE, not so much. One bad diceroll and you are screwed. res 3 and low Arm combined with high cost means that a swing once at almost any moment will sink you. which is in a way a good thing because it forces you to be clinical, however it is incredibly unforgiving to those that are not used to it