ACS Feedback - v1.3 - Other Discussions

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.

  • I'd say that QC feedback is quite accurate for the BSB part, but it doesn't stress how bad is the prince version. Also it is worth adding that prince version could be fixed by having decent around 120 pts magic bow (like single shot bolt thrower or something that is actually worth investing the points).
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • N3okorrales wrote:

    am i missing something?

    You get what you pay for: Gets you the equivalent shooting of 6 Queen's Guard .

    shouldnt it be 3 queens guard?

    Indeed, about QG: how exactly does it be 6 QG .. because of QtF? Otherwise a bare commander with QC and bow + Moonlight arrows (204 pts) is just the equivalent of 3 QG (84 points). QtF can be very handy .. but may also not be used the whole game.

    Imo GC isn't a bad investment as it keeps the BSB relatively safe for a low price. But damage output-wise it's not all that overwhelming if it wasn't for the synergy with being a BSB. How many commanders with QC but not being BSB do you see in army lists?

    I wished we wouldn't have to invest so much points in a commander and we would have characters like a skink captain (80 pts) that can be used as BSB. :D
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..
  • QC is ok but it is pretty similar to RH on chariot. She has no real competition.
    She is adequate that's all.
    Our characters cost tons of points so a cheap honour with more relevant rules is always going to be a good option for BSB.
    I never saw her as a general or at Lord level or even as a scout. So I think there is an issue somewhere.
    Probably mostly around the cost of vanilla characters combined with expensive units and little to no synergy.
  • Regarding the Fleet Officer (and Hwotf to some degree) ..

    Isn't Special Deployment and buffwagons supposed to be hard weaknesses for HBE? The army already have 2 Vanguarding units, 1 Scout unit and one Ambush unit (making you wonder about where the weakness is), and now a character supposed to do Vanguard as well?

    A character providing magical attacks is a perk. A character providing Divine Attacks to his mount is synergy. A character providing Divine Attacks to his whole unit is a very powerful buff wagon effect.....


    Disregarding the whole weaknesses/strengths things those honors are becoming pretty complicated. Rather have a look at SE kindreds (most of which comes with drawbacks too) for a simpler more elegant design for stuff like this
  • Wesser wrote:

    Regarding the Fleet Officer (and Hwotf to some degree) ..

    Isn't Special Deployment and buffwagons supposed to be hard weaknesses for HBE? The army already have 2 Vanguarding units, 1 Scout unit and one Ambush unit (making you wonder about where the weakness is), and now a character supposed to do Vanguard as well?

    A character providing magical attacks is a perk. A character providing Divine Attacks to his mount is synergy. A character providing Divine Attacks to his whole unit is a very powerful buff wagon effect.....


    Disregarding the whole weaknesses/strengths things those honors are becoming pretty complicated. Rather have a look at SE kindreds (most of which comes with drawbacks too) for a simpler more elegant design for stuff like this
    Tricky point the one you rise up.

    As long as an elven character is 4A and T3, I see highly complex creating that ideal of "stoic heros that are power houses themselves". If, say, a RH honor on foot is proposed to have 6A with +1 to hit, and MW2 with whatever the weapon they use (which would stay accordingly with the fact that a RH on foot costs as much as 13 LG)... I can bet you'd rise complaint because "a HBE hero cannot be so different from a SE hero". And I could not deny that such a complaint would hold no truth (external balance issue). If an elven character is made dirty cheap (how they'd really should cost by themselves right now), a goblin player would complain (external balance again). As elven characters are made right now, they must be designed to be closer to "leader-type" commanders (perk granters as EoS) than to spectacular heros.

    So while I think you have a point, there exists an impasse imposed by the RT.

    What would you propose instead? It would be interesting to see what kind of solution you would come up with. And it would be interesting to see if HBE community likes it or not. Because that's the other part of the problem. HBE generals are the ones that must like the army they play with. Otherwise the game design procedure will be an epic failure.
    Who are you going to believe: me, or your own eyes?
  • Nopuiiidorl wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Regarding the Fleet Officer (and Hwotf to some degree) ..

    Isn't Special Deployment and buffwagons supposed to be hard weaknesses for HBE? The army already have 2 Vanguarding units, 1 Scout unit and one Ambush unit (making you wonder about where the weakness is), and now a character supposed to do Vanguard as well?

    A character providing magical attacks is a perk. A character providing Divine Attacks to his mount is synergy. A character providing Divine Attacks to his whole unit is a very powerful buff wagon effect.....


    Disregarding the whole weaknesses/strengths things those honors are becoming pretty complicated. Rather have a look at SE kindreds (most of which comes with drawbacks too) for a simpler more elegant design for stuff like this
    Tricky point the one you rise up.
    As long as an elven character is 4A and T3, I see highly complex creating that ideal of "stoic heros that are power houses themselves". If, say, a RH honor on foot is proposed to have 6A with +1 to hit, and MW2 with whatever the weapon they use (which would stay accordingly with the fact that a RH on foot costs as much as 13 LG)... I can bet you'd rise complaint because "a HBE hero cannot be so different from a SE hero". And I could not deny that such a complaint would hold no truth (external balance issue). If an elven character is made dirty cheap (how they'd really should cost by themselves right now), a goblin player would complain (external balance again). As elven characters are made right now, they must be designed to be closer to "leader-type" commanders (perk granters as EoS) than to spectacular heros.

    So while I think you have a point, there exists an impasse imposed by the RT.

    What would you propose instead? It would be interesting to see what kind of solution you would come up with. And it would be interesting to see if HBE community likes it or not. Because that's the other part of the problem. HBE generals are the ones that must like the army they play with. Otherwise the game design procedure will be an epic failure.
    Well if it was me I'd revolve HBE honors around activated abilities rather than straight up buff mechanics (of which the army already have quite a lot). I personally think the current Fleet Officer a great design for example

    If I had to design HBE honors (disregarding the current ones) I'd keep MoCT and Fleet Officer and add something like:

    Defender: Character and character's unit may choose to count as Distracting/Stubborn on any turn where they are charged, but count any unit they attack as Distracting as well

    Lord of the Mist: At the start of game one unit Archer or Seaguard within 6' gets to shoot for free. Character must be on foot or Skysloop


    Disclaimer: These "honors" may or may not be attractive. It's just the type of more leadership-oriented honors (while not being straight buffs like QG for example) rather than fighty stuff I'd envision for HBE
  • Wesser wrote:


    Defender: Character and character's unit may choose to count as Distracting/Stubborn on any turn where they are charged, but count any unit they attack as Distracting as well
    Did I misread or did I misunderstand? The way you word it is: character may choose to have stubborn / distracting, but in the other hand the rival unit gets (the whole unit?!) distracting as well?

    Is my reading correct? If so: where is the advantage here?
    Who are you going to believe: me, or your own eyes?
  • Nopuiiidorl wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Defender: Character and character's unit may choose to count as Distracting/Stubborn on any turn where they are charged, but count any unit they attack as Distracting as well
    Did I misread or did I misunderstand? The way you word it is: character may choose to have stubborn / distracting, but in the other hand the rival unit gets (the whole unit?!) distracting as well?
    Is my reading correct? If so: where is the advantage here?
    Stubborn AND Distracting, but with the focus on defensive there's an offensive drawback, which can keep the points cost of such an upgrade reasonable (it would be on a T3 character after all)

    It's a tactical decision. The character can choose anvil-mode for a turn, but at a trade-off offensively
  • AlexCat wrote:

    So in my opinion it is not that asfad is popular, it is that in order to use mage it is mandatory due to lore choices we have.
    You understand that other armies live with these paths without range boost?Asfad is a beast). It is very powerful upgrade, no question. I dont say its OP only because in my understanding it boosts one of the trademark features of the army. Highborn elves should be strong with magic, strong than others (which imho cannot be said about some 4wheel models ;) ).
    Well, I mostly face divination in hands of KoE damsels safely hidden inside of 2+As 5++ knights so the range is not much of the issue there. I've yet to witness anyone using cosmology so no clue if people manage to use it with 18" range. For HBE to put 600+ pts wizard in 18" from enemy to me seems far too much risk to consider it. I'm also not claiming that it is not powerful because it is damn good, what I was saying is that without Asfad I do not think we would see many mages (maybe some pyromancers) as ranges of HBE lores are quite prohibitive.

    All this with the usual disclaimer that I'm speaking looking at my local meta and reading tournament lists and reports online.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • Yesterday I had very amusing conversation with my gaming group. I asked them to name a few overpowered units in their opinion. But they had to start from their own army. Only one guy, I believe, followed the condition. Basically, what I was told : its hard to call your own army elements OP as it seems to you that you wouldnt manage without these elements. The obvious necessity of them is quite clear only to the owner.
    That was funny)

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

  • imho cosmology works best with 2 cheap casters to be able to hold both counters at all times to get the most out of the casting value discount but HBE wizards are not what you can call cheap.

    and then you have the issue of where to put the expensive wizards in with only 18 inch range without a death sentence...

    I can totally see a cosmo wizard working well together with a cosmo MotCT BSB IF the wizard had the ability to sit in 2nd rank and the MotCT had the option to mount eagle/griffon to zoom around on the table with fly.

    mhmmmmm a mighty wizard commanding a bunch of swordmasters from 2nd rank while the MotCT BSB on his trusty griffon friend picks of targets and rains death from above... one can dream :)
  • Calcathin wrote:

    Calcathin wrote:

    Honour: MoCT

    Feedback:
    Used as BSB because is the only option to access Alchemy and Druidism. It also is cost effective as BSB and Mage, and is nearly only feasible character config to bring alongside an Ancient Dragon:

    The character has the following issues:
    1. Can't be wizard master: considering he is only way to access Alchemy/Druidism, there should be no reason why he can't be a good mage if one wants to emphasize his mage specialisation. Differentiation will come from lore availability.
    2. He lacks the defense needed for being an expensive combat mage, specially the commander option with a lower magic item allowance. He has +1 to Hit (sword sworn) where he instead needs defensiveness. Why would you want a T3 expensive BSB mage in combat if he can sit safely on the back? Yet you have to pay for all the combat stats if you want Alchemy in your army
    3. Can't be mounted: is that a needed limitation? It limits list building and having other options would promote different builds and lists
    4. Lack of signature in Druidism and of a good effective trait in cosmology are detrimental to it's rules of cherry-picking spells. Without being able to choose spells or default to a useful spell, its flexibility is reduced greatly
    Suggestions:

    On issue 1: allow wizard master

    On issue 2: remove sword sworn and give Distracting instead. Anything it takes to encourage him being a combat-mage

    On issue 3: allow horse, eagle and/or griffon mounts

    On issue 4: Let's wait and see changes to magic to properly evaluate this issue

    On a more brainstorming nature: it would be nice to see on him some rules that promoted him being on combat. Something that would promote a sinergy between his casting ability to promote him being in combat, and being in combat making him a better caster.
    • For example, +1 Ward per spell cast (max 3+) and +1 to cast & channel per wound caused in combat in subsequent active-player magic phase


    I thought about this a lot. Instead of fixing a honour, what is about merging it with my suggestion about the OotFH and make this a true wizard honour?

    What I mean is, give our wizards access to cosmology, druidism, divination and alchemy. You only get pyromancy when you take the OotFH. The OotFH is our warriormage. Pyromancy fits better with the on foot avoidance style. And we also can use still the onfoot- model, which 9th age promotes. Also give swordsworn to this model. You also dont have the benefit anymore of increasing savo range to 27 inch.

    You can make Master of Canreign Tower:

    The wizard knows all spells of the choosen path or becomes pathmaster of all paths, but can only select one spell of each path in the spell generating phase. If he choose the last option, he also knows the trait spell of druidism. Decide which option you take when writing the list.

    So you have the choice: you go for asfad and have an increased range (which is truly great); you go for MoCT and have access to 6 Spells or 4 Spells which you choose at the loose of the increased range or you go with OotFH on the destructive side and got Pyromancy and fighting skill on top of the ability to have a BSB Mage.

    If you do so, OotFH can become this:


    Commander only. The model gains swordsworn and become a wizard apprentice (Pyromancy) and got the master of balance rule. The model always knows the spell Flaming Swords in addition to its normal spells. If Flaming Swords is rolled while generating spells, reroll this dice (it can be rerolled more than once if needed). This does not prevent other Wizards from knowing this spell. The model ignores the Missile and Damage keywords for spells if targeting units with which it is Engaged in Combat with. Can take young dragon or dragon as mount. Can be upgraded to wizard master and can spend up to 200pts in magic items, if he does so.

    You have then the full mount selection for the OotFH except of the Phoenix. So on foot, horse, eagle, griffon (i prefer to have this as fleet officer mount only), Young Dragon, Dragon, Reaver Chariot.

    What do you think, @Calcathin? Swordsworn can be changed to on foot only, but I think its not that kind of an issue to have it on a mount.

    Edit1: Even the on foot version as a fighter would be truly amazing and fits the team of a fighting mage which throws fireballs into combat - because you can cast it into combat. Fits perfect with the model of a certain company....man, I would have a party if this comes true....:D

    Edit2: Maybe loose the automatical knowledge of flaming swords then, because there is no need to differ from a normal wizard. They havent access to pyromancy then. would simplify the rule.

    So:

    Commander only. The model gains swordsworn and become a wizard apprentice (Pyromacy) and got the master of balance rule. The model ignores the Missile and Damage keywords for spells if targeting units with which it is Engaged in Combat with. Can take young dragon or dragon as mount. Can be upgraded to wizard master and can spend up to 200pts in magic items, if he does so.

    On top of that, it would differ from the old version (knowing flaming swords is a relict).

    Edit 3: Oh man, I start whishlisting....I dont know the background, but if this guy is a swordmaster add: If the model is on foot and joins a unit of swordmasters, the unit gains (+2M for charge + swiftstride) against infantry.

    The post was edited 18 times, last by Noldor ().

  • If you put it all packaged in the nice Structured formatting I will move it back, yes!

    It'll be interesting to review this one when the magic changes are known.

    That could be a very interesting concept also for having non-combat mage honours. Basically, that if you want to build powerful mages, you have Asfad and this new Honour available. One that gives you range, one that gives you spell access and versatility. Would build a very strong concept of HbE magicness to have more than one pure-mage honour available.

    That's probably something that would be nice to explore during the book redesign.

    As per 2.0, considering that MoCT is quite a used option, I could expect attention to go more to the other honours. I'd be happy enough to see it gaining the Wizard master upgrade even if that was the only thing. His largest buff (or nerf) may be coming from the magic phase redesign, so we need to wait a bit and see. Imagine mages can choose spells, even cosmology would be interesting as he could cherry-pick not only spells but lores!! It may even be too powerful ;)
    Always a Highborn Elf, here or somewhere else
    The HbE Hotfix- My view
  • @Noldor


    While I fully support the rest of your idea, I believe this part needs a little bit of adjustment:
    Edit 3: Oh man, I start whishlisting....I dont know the background, but if this guy is a swordmaster add: If the model is on foot and joins a unit of swordmasters, the unit gains (+2M for charge + swiftstride) against infantry.

    If you're not planning on fielding SMs you'll be wasting points on that rule, so I'd rather see that if you take the honor you're allowed to upgrade 1? SM unit for X/ppm.