SE 2.0 update progress

  • Feedback

The latest issue of the Scroll is released! Check it out!

  • aseoks wrote:

    Guys, im not sure, if our Sentinels have poison att it means: i have poison in combat or i can aply this on bows?
    You apply it on both. "Poison Attacks - Attacks & Weapons, Melee, Shooting"

    One question: Sylvan Blades : Melee Weapon. Follows the rules for Paired Weapons
    Does it mean we can apply enchants (for paired weapons) on it? Right?

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

  • Reading through the book and noting things as I go along

    -Pathfinders lost +1 Bs, but same points?
    -Bow of wyscan, 90pts to upgrade from str 4 AP 3 to Str = T>4 AP 2. eehhhh
    -Lifeseed, really missing Quick to fire and accurate. Should have aim SET to 3+ ignore modifiers unless the character has better.
    -Spirit of the whirlwind vs Heroes heart. Heroes Heart is 10pts cheaper and 1 AP better. Whirlwind can stack strength bonuses and battle focus. IMHO Heroes heart totally outclasses Whirlwind.
    -Why does all our armour class as innate defence? Antlers of hunt add +1 to their innate defence, but that is essentially worthless due to Elven Cloak.
    -Sooooo...hail of doom arrows can't be taken by our druids, but our Treemen Ancients can??? clearly not a though through change.
    -Glyph, straight up worse than the HbE exact counterpart.
    -Horn of the Wild hunt, 45pts, HA! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHA! no.
    -Predator pennent, another case, the hbe one is straight up better.
    -Just everything about our hereditary being forced into our spell choices. It's not a good spell.
    -Much cheaper dragon prince, not sure if we have the items to support him, but, cool I guess.
    -Matriarch is now the upgrade name? Why do you do this? What's the gain in doing so?????
    -You really want us to use Treekin don't you? 210 is so cheap, I think i'll fill out my core with Heath riders and Archers and take at least 2x3 Treekin for scoring.
    -Sentinels seem very good, when taken in units of 8 they are the same points as before but straight up better. I will use 2x8 in most matches
    -Pathfinders *DIDN'T* get more expensive guys, in units of 10 they are the same cost and in anything smaller they are cheaper. 1x8 Pathfinders will make it into most lists I feel.
    -Treefather decrease is nice.

    So overall the point drops are nice, in the places the rules didn't change at all apart from point drops we did well. But almost everywhere things where changed drastically (apart from shifter and sylvan bows) it's bad. Magic items are a joke, almost all of them are unplayable or have some sort of anti-synergy. Our whole character section is just in tatters, I think i'll go a Druidism Matriarch, a Cosmology/Shamism adept and a naked Thicket shepherd general.
  • SmithF wrote:

    Guys, just a quick heads up. I'll be re-joining the Task Team for SE for the next phase of work on the SE book.

    Hobby time is scarce, but I've been following this discussion and the "priority of characters" thread closely. The ACS team is doing their absolute best to compile the feedback into usable data.

    I understand part of the frustration. There will be adjustments to the books, that's what the beta is all about.
    I've got a couple ideas of how to make SE work in this version, I'll be sharing the playtesting results with you once I get some games in (after the holidays).

    I have one request: please play the game and report back. It's possible that the SE book has missed the mark, or that other books have. Hopefully by the end of the beta we'll have a book that we'll be glad to play with AND against. One educated guess is as good as the next one, but I think that in practice some of the new options will prove to be better than we'd initially thought.

    That is very good news mate, made my day. Btw between you and @Hachiman Taro you’ve convinced me to play a little longer with se, I’ll make some battle reports over the next few weeks to share my pain, I look forward to seeing some reports from yourself to help me develop some better ways to play with this new book.
    You can see my you tube battle reports here

    Or follow me on Facebook here
  • Okay, I can't keep up with this thread, it's so hectic! Good to see an active community though.

    My question is:

    Why are our Sylvan Archers so HIDEOUSLY expensive?

    Sylvan elf that's a bit pants and hits on 3+ - 25pts
    Dwarf Ranger, also hits on 3+, S4 at all ranges, heavy armour, T4, 23pts
    High elf Queen's Guard, hits on 2+, Off and Def 5, S4 at all ranges - 28pts
    Empire state militia, okay, so they only hit on 4+ but you can have FOUR of them for every Sylvan Archer.

    In fact, the more I look, the more I find way stronger and way more cost effective archers in almost every book. I thought SE were meant to be THE shooty army. Not the WORST shooty army.

    What is going on?

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

  • After all this you guys still want to play with this new book and give feedback! Lol. I will not touch it. Infact I believe we need to talk with our feet otherwise this will happen again, and the minor tweeks will not fix what is needed.

    I see two options going forward:
    1. Someone makes a book we can pin on the first page of our forum for us to use, if we all use it it will become official, they will give in.
    2. We all stick to the 1.3 book.

    Anything other then this will lead us to have the same treatment as DE had last year. A really hard to play book that remained hard to play even with countless comments!

    I am not going to let myself be drawn into commenting about our book and hoping for fixes when history has taught me that this will be ignored.

    Don't be sheep and follow this ridicule train, you will only have heartbreak, and I promise nothing big will change. I hope Pascal can fix everything but really I doubt he can get these things through some stubborn heads.

    Still the ETC captains could vote for a different game to be played, when 9th was being created there was 1 better rules set, not as ambitious but definitely more balanced, 9th took hold because of the amount of people in the project, I say if they can't deliver on their promise we need to start looking elsewhere, so far 2.0 rules are great but much worse then 7th Ed and much less balanced then even 8th Ed.
  • My mate is commenting video about VS armybook and we all laugh histericaly in chat. Should we ban VS in tournaments or the question is: where RT balance team was looking. Really, SE is the most restrictive and unsynergy book of all released books atm. Mounted Druids who ruin the free reform of cavalry, Characters who slow down Rangers, enchantments which copy mundane equipment and Kindred bonus (Innate Defence), Shepherd can become BSB only with the decrease of shooting and fast moving category, Elks slowing down the AR9 bunker.

    I'm going to test against VS and if SE survive by turn 4 it will be a miracle.
  • You know, when Bogi started posting around here I started to think he was just a hater because of how he reacted to all the changes but seeing the result, I actually think he's right.

    We had a disastrous 1.3 version of the book which had to get the hotfix because it was so terrible not a single list couldn't be made. We were told to wait for 2.0 and that's what we did because that's what we do, listen and trust.

    And we do we get? We get bows that cripple our characters, 45 points one-use-only worthless items, overcosted banners and 25 points core naked elves. Oh and WH that are more expensive now, I guess because nobody thought what's going to happen with those Di7 march tests....

    Seriously, this is all the feedback you get from my side, I'm with Bogi. RT and BLT, if you want us to play, give us something playable and cut the crap already, it's about time. Because you know what? We're going to spend the time rethinking and remaking while everyone else is going to spend on polishing which means we'll esentially always be behind.ll
  • Okay after a good night of sleep, I decided to put my YAY! Hat on.

    So im going to a 12 player tournament here at 30th December, there will be 3 ETC players and 2 ETC last years ETC players, and some decent players.

    So my list will be put to the test!

    Im also getting some games today and between christmas and new year.

    And i will be reporting Constructive feedback on the games.

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

  • That's a shame. And I do not use this lightly. How could we have such a book after reading both books of our cousins ?

    No matter what topic, they can do it better. Mobility, shooting, magic, close combat. Better. In. Everything.

    I will try to work on an unofficial version starting now. I'm just wondering how much effort I should put in this.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Tarf: EDIT : I'm having trouble to convert the pdf in an other format. Does someone have the source document please ? Contact me in private ().

  • Tarf wrote:

    I will try to work on an unofficial version starting now. I'm just wondering how much effort I should put in this.
    I was thinking about that as well. If I remember correctly, Latex is used for typesetting the slim books.

    @anyoneFromTheLayoutTeam, would it be possible to provide a template for community projects?
  • Koller wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    Sure :)

    Where do you think @nantuko got his ETC build from?
    Ooooh, I would never have figured that out, I always thought you were an MSU kind of guy

    Tell me when ye got me figured out, I would like to read it :)


    I know what this book is, and why it is what it is - and I know what votes were put forth and who argued what positions and how and why. And I think it safe to say that my actions speak clearly of how well I find the progress went. Such as how I asked them to remove my badge.

    ..but when a quality figure like Pascal tells me that he is willing to toss some hours at it - and that he would like some help - thats beyond my distaste of the ruling few.

    So I will see what I can find of gems that need some more polish. Should I find something that is factually broken - I would for the health of the game report that too ofc. But feedback on whatever seems to actually be working is.. not a piece of information I trust be handled with neither understanding nor care.

    Do like me - give the book a spin - but make sure to test out the elements you suspect lacking :)

    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
  • Herminard wrote:

    I know what this book is, and why it is what it is - and I know what votes were put forth and who argued what positions and how and why. And I think it safe to say that my actions speak clearly of how well I find the progress went. Such as how I asked them to remove my badge
    This sound very disheartening and questions the whole T9A project.
  • Checking the general discussion and the posted lists here...
    List that you wish to try for 2.0
    ...I'm a bit less worried than few weeks ago about the internal balance of the non-character units.

    The first tendency went to spamming shooting heath riders, forest rangers and kestrel knights.
    But a see many army lists which still use one or more units of sylvan archers and blade dancers (=huge point reduction) instead, some also with forest guard.
    Even pathfinders are still used while sentinels are use much more than before...and from first tendency slightly more than pathfinders.

    So a lot of the effort to balance the non-character units seems to lead to results which go in the right direction.
    Wild Huntsmen (=frenzy, point costs)) IMO are the only unit besides scoring Heath Riders (=category) still creating headaches.

    Now this is no excuse for the following things that obviously got worse compared to V1.3 and that will need a focussed view with the next update
    1. magic (=especially forest spirit wizards and hereditary spell)
    2. magical items (=most items are either too restricted/situational or too expensive)
    3. categories (=especially overcrowded FoF category)

    I would not count characters in general as an issue but solving the magic and magical items problems should also solve most problems concerning characters.

    Of course there are also other issue but these are more specific issues...and we have it all nicely consolidated here:
    Consolidated SE Community Feedback to 2.0 changes

    So please check this list in post #1 and post further issues and ideas/solutions.

    I assume that earlier than we all think (in January), there will be the first community interaction to find the most important issues to be solved, no matter if rules, balance, dis-synergies, mistakes etc.

    Quick Starter Team