Pinned SE 2.0 update progress

  • Feedback

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Wondering how the new magic phase feels like? Try it yourself! The Behind The Scenes blog gives you enough to playtest it, including spells of four paths of magic, all hereditary spells and the Dwarven runes!

  • SE 2.0 update progress

    Swordthain wrote:

    Thanks for the insight. If armor is NOT one of their hard weaknesses, then I don't see any real reason why spearelves in any of the elf factions shouldn't have access to 4+ armor. I think shields, along with elven cloaks and light armor worn together, to arrive at a 4+ hardly strikes me as overpowered. I could be wrong...
    Who knows how the armies will change.

    I personally wouldn't have a problem if HE got access to AS4+ infantry.
    When you see HE armies, their armour doesn't look like light armour at all.

    Furthermore, I don't get why the army direction survey lead to even HE being rather weak at Defense - Armour:

    SEDEHE
    Strength - Defense - Armour0512
    Weakness - Defense - Armour935841
    Difference-93-53-29



    Doesn't make sense to me that an advanced race like elves, especially HE, doesn't have a single infantry unit with at least 4+ AS.
    In our current meta, a 5+ AS is nearly unimportant and is mostly reduced to lucky 6s or even no AS at all.


    Agree to @Squirrelloid that this huge negative value for Defense - Armour for SE (the worst of all armies) could even lead to hardly any access to even 5+ AS....which is why the Elven Cloak discussion thread leads to suggestions like not granting +1AS but something like hard target (possibly in a slightly weaker form).

    SE Community Support

    Playtester

    Quick Starter Team


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

  • SE 2.0 update progress

    Hi everyone.

    Firstly, let me apologize for the lack of updates so far from your ACS team about the 2.0 update. @DJWoodelf, @Juri and I have been working hard with the rest of our task team for a while now, but so far there hasn't been anything we can share yet.

    Before we go any further, I recommend you all read THIS fantastic post about the process from the EoS ACS. I can't write it better, so I'm not going to try.

    Now, as for our own progress on SE, we've had some delays, but we have finished work on magic and magic items, although some of it is waiting to be reviewed by the Rules Team, so it's not quite ready for us to drop any spoilers yet. We'd look pretty stupid if we told you the Bow of Wyscan was getting 2d6 shots at S10 (hint: it isn't), then the RT rejected it and told us to drop it to S4!

    Anyway, we'll give you an overview of our magic items as soon as they have been approved, and any changes made. All I can tell you for now is that nearly all the current items are still there, some unchanged, some tweaked slightly, and a couple are totally new items under the same name. We also have several brand new items too. I think you will all be pretty happy when you see them properly, and there are some exciting possibilities there.

    We can't tell you about the other magic changes yet, because it would reveal too much that isn't ready for public release yet, but let me just say, the SE specific magic changes range from a nice, but situational little feature, to an OMG-I'M-SO-EXCITED-I-WANT-TO-TELL-YOU-KNOW change. I think you will all be very happy with SE magic in 2.0.

    At the moment, we are working on some of our units and options. As you all know, there are a lot of issues in SE, and plenty of stuff which gets used, but doesn't play how we'd like or just doesn't get used. We can't fix it all. We have been given a limited number of design "slots", because otherwise every task team would want to redesign everything, and it would never get finished. However, by careful juggling of our design slots, and judicious use of "free" minor redesigns due to changes in various rules, we think we are getting most of the worst offenders, and we are hopeful that some of the remaining items will be at least made useable through point adjustments.

    There are going to be a few things which don't get fixed yet though, or at least not completely fixed. However, we think you are going to be very happy with the stuff we are getting to, and that the 2.0 update will bring most of our book up to the standard of the best parts of the current book.

    Anyway, that's all I have to say for now. I look forward to bringing you some proper spoilers soon. Thanks for being patient with us, you won't regret it.
  • Ryasin wrote:

    Will we get our categories adjusted (FoF). In particular not having characters eating up so much of it if they as much as sneeze near a mount?
    Categories, like point costs, are not something we can touch in the redesign unfortunately. The task team can make recomendations, and we will be doing so, but we can't ask for too much. It is also a delicate area, and we have to be careful because removing stuff from a category could lead to a reduction in that category. That might leave us better off if we want to use that particular unit a lot, but it might also make things worse for people who don't use that unit very much. So while we do want to address the excessive portion of our army which all count towards Fleet of Foot, we have to be very careful and it is better to not make changes than make changes which end up not improving things, while limiting choice for people who use a different balance of units.

    For example, if Briar Maidens where removed from FoF (obviously they won't be), and the balance team decided that on average SE armies spend 12%(made-up number alert) of their points on Briar Maidens, they might decide to reduce the FoF budget by 10%. Now the average player who spends 12% on BM has basically gained an extra 2% FoF budget, great!

    Unfortunately, Little Timmy doesn't use BM, as he prefers to play a heavily combat-focussed army with lots of Bladedancers, Wild Huntsmen and Kestral Knights. He now has 450 points less to spend on those units, and the army he's been collecting and painting is now invalid. Poor Little Timmy ;(

    So, yeah, we would like to see some changes to categories, but it's something which has to be approached very carefully. We will be making at least one recomendation for a change, but I can't say for sure how much more than that there will be.
  • posting more just to follow the thread but...

    I really would like to see eagle characters out of FoF. Seems counterintuitive on a M9 model, but then again it's not like blade dancers scream mach 2...

    Eagle surfers are cool, and it can't be denied they need sum luv. They are so bad atm I struggle to envision them a huge asset even for ultra avoidance builds.

    Or do avoidancers use mounted characters atm? I imagine they'd use minimal infantry chars to put in skirmish bunkers and thusly max out on FoF units :huh:
    I invite you to choke on my pointy ears \ >_o/
    Phae's Pointy-Ear Blog: Elves in a Corner
  • its not that easy to completely remove a unit from a category or to move it to a less restrictive category.

    Imagine a character on a mount with hail shot + bow of wyscan + bound spell (or normal spells if its a wizard).
    Such a character will probably avoid close combats as long as possible and is predestined to be FoF while an only close combat oriented mounted character might not really fit the sense of that category.

    The V1.3 categories and eventually also for v2.0 (first army update = not full army redesign) mean that FoF includes most units that are fast....independent from their main role (avoidance, guerilla, heavy hitters, redirectors...)
    The design space for v2.0 for each army doesnt include an overhaul of categories and the SE task team can't do nothing else than slightly knocking on the office door of BLT, RT etc. and handing in a tiny paper with recommendations which units might be better of in another category...but mainly because it could fit to v2.0 BRB and/or army book changes.

    SE Community Support

    Playtester

    Quick Starter Team


  • Maybe its just me, but in my opinion the biggest problem of SE by far are the restrictive categories. Its a pity that they won't be changed.


    CariadocThorne wrote:

    For example, if Briar Maidens where removed from FoF (obviously they won't be), and the balance team decided that on average SE armies spend 12%(made-up number alert) of their points on Briar Maidens, they might decide to reduce the FoF budget by 10%. Now the average player who spends 12% on BM has basically gained an extra 2% FoF budget, great!

    Unfortunately, Little Timmy doesn't use BM, as he prefers to play a heavily combat-focussed army with lots of Bladedancers, Wild Huntsmen and Kestral Knights. He now has 450 points less to spend on those units, and the army he's been collecting and painting is now invalid. Poor Little Timmy
    To me it feels like this is already the case. The categories are set up to stop someone who wants to build the most abusive avoidance list ever from pushing it too far. Now everyone else who wants to play fun and creative lists hits his head at seemingly arbitrary category ceilings that don't seem to make much sense outside of that weird 'avoidance bubble'.

    Don't get me wrong. I truly appreciate the effort. I just feel like the only real problem SE have right now is not getting looked at.
  • Arrahed wrote:

    Maybe its just me, but in my opinion the biggest problem of SE by far are the restrictive categories. Its a pity that they won't be changed.
    Well, just because the Task Team which includes the ACS doesn't have the power to make these changes, doesn't mean nothing will change.

    Once we have finished with the redesign work, and everything has been approved by the Rules Team, the Balance Team will then perform their own review of the book, and will go through assigning and adjusting point costs, tweaking and polishing the design where absolutely neccesary, and reviewing both category percentages, and which units are assigned to which category.

    It is well known that the SE book has a problem with the categories,and the balance team know that as well as anyone, so I would be very surprissed if they don't at least try to find a way to ease the problem somewhat.

    Arrahed wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    For example, if Briar Maidens where removed from FoF (obviously they won't be), and the balance team decided that on average SE armies spend 12%(made-up number alert) of their points on Briar Maidens, they might decide to reduce the FoF budget by 10%. Now the average player who spends 12% on BM has basically gained an extra 2% FoF budget, great!

    Unfortunately, Little Timmy doesn't use BM, as he prefers to play a heavily combat-focussed army with lots of Bladedancers, Wild Huntsmen and Kestral Knights. He now has 450 points less to spend on those units, and the army he's been collecting and painting is now invalid. Poor Little Timmy
    To me it feels like this is already the case. The categories are set up to stop someone who wants to build the most abusive avoidance list ever from pushing it too far. Now everyone else who wants to play fun and creative lists hits his head at seemingly arbitrary category ceilings that don't seem to make much sense outside of that weird 'avoidance bubble'.
    Don't get me wrong. I truly appreciate the effort. I just feel like the only real problem SE have right now is not getting looked at.
    I agree, for the most part. If you hadn't used the word "arbitrary", I would agree 100%. I expect the BLT would as well.

    These ceilings are NOT arbitrary. They have been carefully calculated to provide the best possible balance between allowing as much freedom as possible, without allowing extreme lists to get too out-of-hand. That is a very difficult thing to do.

    In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that BLT possibly have the most difficult jobs out of everyone working on the project.

    They have to assign points costs, categories and so on in such a way as to allow as much freedom as possible, constrain abusive or overly extreme builds, and still keep every unit and option in every book viable. Just maintaning both internal and external balance simultaneously is a herculean task, and I can tell you, I would not want to do their job.

    One thing to bear in mind is that they are constrained by the design. If we do a good enough job on the design, making the most extreme list less attractive and lists within the desired range of playstyles more attractive, then the BLT may be able to loosen the reigns a bit, because building super-extreme avoidance builds simply won't be as effective as building a more moderate avoidance list instead. So if BLT don't give us a bit more freedom in list building, it means that we, the Task Team, didn't do as good a job as we hoped.
  • Ryasin wrote:

    @CariadocThorne I am mostly thinking of characters, as their larger cost takes a huge chunk out of the category for units. Regardless if its a horse, eagle, elk or unicorn
    Yes, by far the biggest problem in our book IMO is that we're directly penalized for taking non-dragon mounts, despite the book not giving us any way of actually playing them because Shieldriders suck and all other cavalry are penalized if characters are included.

    Wild Hunters are alright in FoF, but our update really needs to provide at least one of the below:

    a) Light troops to elven horse/unicorn
    b) eagle/unicorn/horse mounts out of FoF
    c) Shieldriders made into a decent carrier

    Eagles will probably needs a price cut or special rules of some sort to be viable, but honestly... if it's base size could be reduced to 40x40, so it can decently join Kestrels and not look stupid...then I'll play them
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Well, just because the Task Team which includes the ACS doesn't have the power to make these changes, doesn't mean nothing will change.
    So there is a chance that point cost and categorization will change? That sounds promising.

    I fully understand how complicated the job of the BLT is and that category limits are not really arbitrary. What I meant by 'arbitrary' is that the limits are used to limit the power of certain builds. For many other builds, the limits do not really control the power level in any way. In these cases they are just arbitrary numbers that reduce variety and don't regulate power level.

    I realize that I sounded a little negative. That was not my intention. I am exited about the upcoming changes. :thumbup:
  • Well, they give us some honey and we want to take their arm jaja This team doesn´t make the balance of the army I think.

    Maybe I won´t have an ask but... Can I ask Rangers is going one of your target to be "fixed"? :P

    Maybe you can create a debate about one unit you have some doubt, we can give some crazy ideas as community jaja
    Lately this is a bit death.
    A jackal, O Karna, residing in the forest in the midst of hares regardeth himself a lion till he actually sees a lion.
  • @CariadocThorne thanks for the up date mate - really appreciate the work you guys are doing and how restrictive what you can share is.

    I second the eagle rider - could the mount just be changed to a kestrel? Price accordingly.

    Thanks again for the up date - look forward to more news, getting really excited about 2.0

    One question - are you able to say much or anything about how the stat splits are going to affect us?
    You can see my you tube battle reports here
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=e76ivZdXX9s&t=79s

    Or follow me on Facebook here
    facebook.com/Casamarnz/#
  • casamar wrote:

    @CariadocThorne thanks for the up date mate - really appreciate the work you guys are doing and how restrictive what you can share is.

    I second the eagle rider - could the mount just be changed to a kestrel? Price accordingly.

    Thanks again for the up date - look forward to more news, getting really excited about 2.0

    One question - are you able to say much or anything about how the stat splits are going to affect us?
    The eagle mount has been mentioned. I don't know whether we will get to it though, there are so many contenders for redesign, and we can't do all of them. We'll see though. I'm not even sure what we could do to make the eagle viable, if you want to stick some ideas in the Wishlisting thread, I'll have a look, and IF we do end up redesigning the Eagle mount, it could come in handy. Just remember that we may not do the eagle, and if we do, specific suggestions may not get used, although they will definately help tell us what kind of things people want, and help spark other ideas.

    As for stat split, so far I only know of a few instances where it is going to affect us specifically, and I can't share yet. I think this is more something which is going to gradually creep into the game, rather than landing all at once. Over time, as more things get redesigned or new things get designed people won't feel as bound to the old statlines and we will naturally start seeing more instances of units with higher Offensive skill than Defensive, or high Strength but low AP and so on.
  • Oooh! Oooh! Are we *finally* getting Witchcraft? Did my insistent whining work??? Considering it's a topic that was brought up literally the day the new lores where released it'd be nice to see some momentum on the community actively impacting the identity of our army.

    As for the magic items, I'm excited we are getting new ones but tbh a lot of our current ones don't see much use and may need more than a minor rejig to be useful. On the otherhand Ogre Kharns where able to swap on of their magic item choices (only having 14 rather than the full 15) in exchange for a new Big Name. Is this a possibility for perhaps getting a new Kindred? Eagle Riders are just so unusable right now it could really open up an aerial assault sort of playstyle.
  • Excited to see changes!

    TBH the best and perhaps on;y way to conclusively deal with the category restrictions would be a "diminishing returns" model, where the more you buy of something, the less effective it is for cost. The bluntest way to do that would be to make things in a category apply a progressive surcharge of points the more troops /units are taken, rather than having a fixed percentage cap. I doubt something that radical is in the works, but maybe there is a smaller scale way to do similar?

    Anyway, excited to see what you guys are coming up with and mainly posting to get updates ;)

    Are there any particular things it would be useful for community brainstorming to focus on? There was a specific set of things the data collection guys seemed to have focused in on a few weeks back - might that be a good hint?