Costing of Spear-elves compared to concept

  • you should try out EoS core (knights aside). The only forgiving part for them is that is kind of fluffy to die in droves and run away, as opposed to elves.
    I think its a general problem with core (mainly s3 t3 core) that its simply too fragile and too weak to cause serious dammage. and static CR is not enough.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • Adam wrote:

    @Shalontas I would suggest you to actually learn to use your units instead of whining that they are weak. I have won couple of tournaments having only heroes and core in HBE. Our core is definitely not weak, on the other hand it requires quite a lot of skill to use properly.

    That said that is what HBE should be - high skill intensive army that wrecks when played right and is totally unforgiving when played badly.
    Is there a particular reason you are personally attacking me?

    I stated multiple times my opinion on this. Also, having played for 30+ years and won multiple tournaments in that time I am qualified to give an opinion on the design of the army. If you feel the need to beat your chest and yell at me "QQ more" please do it elsewhere where at least other people do not need to see you being rude.

    As far as it being weak goes, (previously stated----> IMO they are) You are having success with them, good for you. Myself and my friends are not, and our opponents (DE, Lizzies, WotDG, Skaven, Dwarves) have spent hours, HOURS, laughing at the point costs and usability of the core of the HbE army. That is proof enough by itself. The fact that there have been post after post for the last two years all on the topic of HbE Core costs, issues, useability and purpose is also proof that there is a problem.

    I do have hope that 2.0 will solve (finally) some of these issues. As stated previously, this is my OPINION. If you disagree with it, give a counter argument with examples. Don't reply with "QQ moar, get better." That accomplishes nothing.
  • @Shalontas whilst I don't agree with the tone of @Adams reply to you, honestly your opinions have been less than constructive in this matter.

    I can see that you are very passionate and want the best for HBE core however some of your comments do come across as personally vilifying those that are working on the books across all teams.

    Second point is that the fluff you are referring to cannot be used in any official capacity as IP issues would then force us to close up shop. We are diverging from WHFB, and this allows us more room to create and be something much more useful and fun when it comes to design.

    Thirdly, our core is not designed to be super men, they are designed to support, contest and add power when applied correctly and supported by our magic/special units. They will not Roflstomp everyone just because of their expense. I'm sure you can see that if we designed them to do that, the game would be fun for no one.

    If you personally have issues with some of the designs, instead of venting and throwing emotions into your replies without frame of context, create suggestions that you believe might work. I keep track of all of these and once we come to our full rewrite we can use them for inspiration or full porting if the idea is universally liked and applicable to the wider direction of the game.
  • Shalontas wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, but HBE aren’t alone in this. DE Core is perhaps the most inefficient in the game. You thought HBE was bad? Try playing with Spears that are both worse and more expensive. Thought archers were bad? Imagine if they got hit with so many modifiers that they are regularly hitting 6s - if they can even get into range. How about a whopping 260 points for 10 t3 no as Elves (there’s a reason Blades are never seen).

    At least HBE get 2+ As knights.

    Other armies have similar problems. Hopefully 2.0 corrects some of these issues.
    My DE opponent never uses his spearmen or swordmen. He brings witch elves and corsairs exclusively. With his altar, ouch. He has alternate choices. We do not.
    DE pay a premium on each model because we might be able to benefit from the altar, it’s insanity. Therefor we are actively penalised for not bringing it. The buffs aren’t even that great. Plus heavy cav in core is huge. But having said that it’s toxic getting into the “whose got it worse” debate, both books have fundamental problems with core but I’m totally confident we’ll see some real progress with 2.0.
    #freekillerinstinct Killer Instinct for all Dread Elves!
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    Shalontas wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, but HBE aren’t alone in this. DE Core is perhaps the most inefficient in the game. You thought HBE was bad? Try playing with Spears that are both worse and more expensive. Thought archers were bad? Imagine if they got hit with so many modifiers that they are regularly hitting 6s - if they can even get into range. How about a whopping 260 points for 10 t3 no as Elves (there’s a reason Blades are never seen).

    At least HBE get 2+ As knights.

    Other armies have similar problems. Hopefully 2.0 corrects some of these issues.
    My DE opponent never uses his spearmen or swordmen. He brings witch elves and corsairs exclusively. With his altar, ouch. He has alternate choices. We do not.
    DE pay a premium on each model because we might be able to benefit from the altar, it’s insanity. Therefor we are actively penalised for not bringing it. The buffs aren’t even that great. Plus heavy cav in core is huge. But having said that it’s toxic getting into the “whose got it worse” debate, both books have fundamental problems with core but I’m totally confident we’ll see some real progress with 2.0.
    Not arguing with you, but my three DE opponents would never see the altar as anything but a bonus and plus. They would also disagree with you on the points cost for their units as they all see them as being close.
  • @Shalontas really quick on the background end, T9a is writing its own background from the ground up. You can still expect HBE to be one of the most magical races, to be long lived, etc. but just because GW wrote something for their High Elves doesn't mean ours have anything to do with it.

    HBE Archers are more for killing specific light targets, such as chaff and warmachines. That's where their value comes into play. Against massed units, I implore you to play 2x Fire Phoenixes and a tooled up Pyromancer. Finishing off with a big unit of Sword Masters, and you will make mince meat of such units. Furthermore, 10 archers is a pretty insignificant investment. Have you tried a unit of 20 with a QG BSB? That unit is excellent at killing enemy support. Again, if you have trouble with matches my best advice would be to post your list on the list building forum, say which match-ups are giving you trouble and ask for help.

    On core, I won't disagree with you. It's pretty commonly accepted that in 1.3 our core is more of support, it's our goodies in Special that push our army through to victory. We only had so many redesign slots (Sea Guard), but come the full re-write you can bet your bottom dollar we're going to try to work on our core units. That said, this department even in the 2.0 update could see improvement. Have you seen post 24 (And 27)?

    On a more personal note,

    I'm always happy to hear feedback and to have people participate on our forum, however a lot of your supporting evidence is very circumstantial (I strongly suspect your games could go more favorably with list and tactical adjustments) and either has baseless support (GW fluff) or none (how are people stopping using Bolt Throwers related in any way to cannons? Do you have evidence within the army they are too expensive? People not using them could just mean Sky Sloops are op as an example. I'm not disagreeing but you need support otherwise an opinion is just an opinion). I understand you are not an experienced member of this forum, but that's all the more reason to politely ask questions until you get your bearings and can put forward constructive criticism. The staff members are very self aware, like with core we know that spears could have some more stuff going on for them. But there are reasons why this hasn't happened yet, and there are plans to make it happen. And even then, as the posts I mention hint at, we're trying our best to fix them when we can't actually change the unit.

    I would ask you to remember that this is a volunteer project and a free product. Every staff member puts in personal time and energy and doesn't receive a penny for their work. As I said, they are quite self aware of the state of the game. I would ask that you respect the fact that you don't understand all the reasons for the current state of the game and you don't know what our army will look like in v2.0 (where I think some of your criticism is addressed).
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    @Shalontas whilst I don't agree with the tone of @Adams reply to you, honestly your opinions have been less than constructive in this matter.

    I can see that you are very passionate and want the best for HBE core however some of your comments do come across as personally vilifying those that are working on the books across all teams.

    Second point is that the fluff you are referring to cannot be used in any official capacity as IP issues would then force us to close up shop. We are diverging from WHFB, and this allows us more room to create and be something much more useful and fun when it comes to design.

    Thirdly, our core is not designed to be super men, they are designed to support, contest and add power when applied correctly and supported by our magic/special units. They will not Roflstomp everyone just because of their expense. I'm sure you can see that if we designed them to do that, the game would be fun for no one.

    If you personally have issues with some of the designs, instead of venting and throwing emotions into your replies without frame of context, create suggestions that you believe might work. I keep track of all of these and once we come to our full rewrite we can use them for inspiration or full porting if the idea is universally liked and applicable to the wider direction of the game.
    #1 - It has been two years of "we know, we are working, we will fix it, wait for this, wait for that." I am not personally villifying anyone working, for free on something. I am pointing out that the people who "chose" to take on the task have been making promises and have not as yet fulfilled them. Originally 2.0 was to be out beginning of 2017, it is November 2017, as an example. If anyone making 9th age feels that I am personally mad at them or whatever, that is their right. I am not, but they have the right to their feelings, just like I have the right to be annoyed at empty promises....

    #2 - The fluff from WHFB is what we have. I understand why you can't use it, but until you have some REAL NEW FLUFF it is what is pictured by many players when they play, paint or look at their armies. I was super excited to read the fluff that was going to be in the rule book. My friends and I waited for it, salivated over it and then downloaded and sent to people around the world who could not access it. It was disappointing. It is going somewhere, but there is no detail on the Highborne Elves in the fluff besides we sail around and are elves. What little fluff there is mentions terrifying dragons and fierce elven warriors. Dragons are not anything to be feared (except ancient mostly for T7, oops) and our infantry is over-costed or unable to take even a moderate hit.

    #3 - Of course they are not super men, they are elves. Elves with armor, training and experience vastly better than men, or rats. Seriously clanrats can fight elven spearmen one on one. One on ONE. I clearly stated I did not want them to rofl stop, and you said they are designed to support, contest and add power when applied correctly. Okay, how? Here is how this goes down vs:

    Dwarves: Round 1- immediately shoots my flyers, and cav to either destroy or remove them. Ignores my core, (this is a quote) "Absolutely no threat there, I will mop them up after everything else is rendered ineffective." Which, with our point costs is not many casualties, which is not hard to do with 5+ armor across everything in the core (except Lancers). To reply I have Str 3 arrows and spears. Dwarven toughness is what again?

    WotDG: Round 1 He charges. Period. No worry about my troops, my monsters or my shooting. All he has is actual Warriors of the Dark Gods (Chaos Warriors). He doesn't need anything else. ST 3 arrows do not pen his armor and his characters can and do see off everything in my army. He literally refuses to play me as he thinks the match up is so ridiculously in his favor, what is the point?

    Lizardmen: Monsters to match my monsters. Magic to match my magic. Core vs Core, they win. Better stats (combat) lets them walk over me.

    Skaven: An actual fight. I do enjoy these match ups, though watching clanrats hold their own against even numbers of spearmen is disheartening. My monster are effective here if I can neutralize her war machines, but this is basically the only even match up that exists in my meta.

    Bottom line, I have now tried 15 different army combination is over 40 games. I never had this problem in 8th edition (and yes, we still play it). We were hoping that 9th age would be our new rule set as it is, in theory, evolving. My friends don't want to play it with HbE as it is not a fight; their words, not mine.

    In the forums I see lots of ideas and criticism in all the elven forums about their core choices. It should not have taken this long to address this. I have made suggestions or other have suggested them.

    It feels like we are talking to a wall, so I stopped and walked away for a year to wait for 2.0. I come back, download and read everything to see what has changed, nothing....in a year.

    In terms of being emotional. Yes, yes I am. I want a good game that can be played. Where skill is more important than what army you are playing. In my meta, the majority of us are constantly laughing at the point costs for different equivalent units in the army lists.

    As stated (several times) I was not trying to pick a fight or an argument. If you perceived it that way, my apologies. I shall return to ignoring 9th age now.
  • PapaG wrote:

    @Shalontas really quick on the background end, T9a is writing its own background from the ground up. You can still expect HBE to be one of the most magical races, to be long lived, etc. but just because GW wrote something for their High Elves doesn't mean ours have anything to do with it.

    HBE Archers are more for killing specific light targets, such as chaff and warmachines. That's where their value comes into play. Against massed units, I implore you to play 2x Fire Phoenixes and a tooled up Pyromancer. Finishing off with a big unit of Sword Masters, and you will make mince meat of such units. Furthermore, 10 archers is a pretty insignificant investment. Have you tried a unit of 20 with a QG BSB? That unit is excellent at killing enemy support. Again, if you have trouble with matches my best advice would be to post your list on the list building forum, say which match-ups are giving you trouble and ask for help.

    On core, I won't disagree with you. It's pretty commonly accepted that in 1.3 our core is more of support, it's our goodies in Special that push our army through to victory. We only had so many redesign slots (Sea Guard), but come the full re-write you can bet your bottom dollar we're going to try to work on our core units. That said, this department even in the 2.0 update could see improvement. Have you seen post 24 (And 27)?

    On a more personal note,

    I'm always happy to hear feedback and to have people participate on our forum, however a lot of your supporting evidence is very circumstantial (I strongly suspect your games could go more favorably with list and tactical adjustments) and either has baseless support (GW fluff) or none (how are people stopping using Bolt Throwers related in any way to cannons? Do you have evidence within the army they are too expensive? People not using them could just mean Sky Sloops are op as an example. I'm not disagreeing but you need support otherwise an opinion is just an opinion). I understand you are not an experienced member of this forum, but that's all the more reason to politely ask questions until you get your bearings and can put forward constructive criticism. The staff members are very self aware, like with core we know that spears could have some more stuff going on for them. But there are reasons why this hasn't happened yet, and there are plans to make it happen. And even then, as the posts I mention hint at, we're trying our best to fix them when we can't actually change the unit.

    I would ask you to remember that this is a volunteer project and a free product. Every staff member puts in personal time and energy and doesn't receive a penny for their work. As I said, they are quite self aware of the state of the game. I would ask that you respect the fact that you don't understand all the reasons for the current state of the game and you don't know what our army will look like in v2.0 (where I think some of your criticism is addressed).
    I like infantry heavy armies, as the fluff has been for many, many years. I know it is changing...when?

    It is funny how all I hear talked about for successful lists is 2x phoenix and SM. I have tried 30 archers in 2 units, dink dink dink dink dink. Bottom line in my experiences I can't find a single successful use of the spearment or archers. That leaves Lancers and sea guard.

    I haven't listed my army lists or specific examples as I have tried over 50 combination of units and lists trying to find something that works. No success. My opponents don't seem to think it is me, and they ALL laugh at the list.

    I know it is a volunteer project and I am thankful that people are doing this. As stated over a year ago though, we can't wait forever. When is a valid question. You may not be charging anything for the 9th age project rules, but you still have customers. How long should they wait?

    As far as being new to a forum goes. You are basing that on my post count. Fine, I lurked for 6 months before I said anything.

    Apologies if I am being offensive, I am not trying to be, so this really is my last post for a while as I don't want to ruin it for you all or offend anyone.
  • Shalontas wrote:

    I have tried 30 archers in 2 units, dink dink dink dink dink. Bottom line in my experiences I can't find a single successful use of the spearment or archers.
    You haven't and this years ETC winning HBE roster had both 20 spears and 30 archers. Which means that they can be used with great successes you just have to learn how.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HBE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HBE generals: HBE Beginners corner
  • @Shalontas

    1.0 came out as a successor to WFB. However, due to ip reasons we needed to go on our own direction, which we started with the release of 1.3. Many players were unhappy with the rapidity of the rules changes and desired stability, also if I am not mistaken the team wanted more time to collect the data they needed. So for a time the rules were frozen. It is understood that 1.3 is less than amazing, that is why they are being further changed to create a stable v2.0. From there each army book can be individually brought into the true 9th age fold. This is where we are now, a few months away from releasing v2.0. Please be aware of this history, as well as the fact that you are criticizing a version of the game when we are so close to releasing a new one to address these problems.

    As this is a volunteer game, and not anyone's working profession, deadlines are there to give the community an idea of when to expect things. However, personal life comes up, people come and go from the project, and as a result deadlines may need to be moved. It is simply the nature of such a project. We want you all to play the new rules as soon as possible, but we also want those new rules to be fun.

    It's okay to not like the current state of the game. It's okay to play 8th or other tabletop games. It's okay to come back and check out the project in another year.

    The reason I've been pointing you towards our tactical sections is because I know our book can perform. It is well known as well that the variety of competitive builds we have is small and not the style many would like to see. However, as someone with access to our new book not only do I think we will have a greater variety of competitive builds, I think those builds will be in a play style more fitting with Highborn Elves. Our play testers have said as much!

    No matter what your path, I wish you the best with your tabletop pursuits.
  • Shalontas wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Shalontas wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, but HBE aren’t alone in this. DE Core is perhaps the most inefficient in the game. You thought HBE was bad? Try playing with Spears that are both worse and more expensive. Thought archers were bad? Imagine if they got hit with so many modifiers that they are regularly hitting 6s - if they can even get into range. How about a whopping 260 points for 10 t3 no as Elves (there’s a reason Blades are never seen).

    At least HBE get 2+ As knights.

    Other armies have similar problems. Hopefully 2.0 corrects some of these issues.
    My DE opponent never uses his spearmen or swordmen. He brings witch elves and corsairs exclusively. With his altar, ouch. He has alternate choices. We do not.
    DE pay a premium on each model because we might be able to benefit from the altar, it’s insanity. Therefor we are actively penalised for not bringing it. The buffs aren’t even that great. Plus heavy cav in core is huge. But having said that it’s toxic getting into the “whose got it worse” debate, both books have fundamental problems with core but I’m totally confident we’ll see some real progress with 2.0.
    Not arguing with you, but my three DE opponents would never see the altar as anything but a bonus and plus. They would also disagree with you on the points cost for their units as they all see them as being close.
    The points cost issue is actually true, there is a premium for the potential use of the altar. But my issue and a great many in the DE community is that a DE list without the altar is deliberately made sub-par. Not everybody likes having to shell out for it and at smaller points games it’s a real pain trying to fit it in. Still the resdesign will probably fix it.
    #freekillerinstinct Killer Instinct for all Dread Elves!
  • Shalontas wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    “ I never had this problem in 8th edition (and yes, we still play it)“

    That’s funny, because the basic principals (mechanics and core configuration) haven’t changed since 8th edition.
    Have to:
    1.) Lightning reflexes
    2.) Always Strikes First

    Basic principle change for spearmen
    1) irrelevant to your criticism of archers.
    2) 20 8th ed Spears with asf did 2.5 wounds to t4 4+ as warriors. 20 t9a Spears with LR do 2.8 thanks to Spears AP1.

    So a change in favour of t9a buffing Spears.

    Next?
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Shalontas wrote:

    #1 - It has been two years of "we know, we are working, we will fix it, wait for this, wait for that." I am not personally villifying anyone working, for free on something. I am pointing out that the people who "chose" to take on the task have been making promises and have not as yet fulfilled them. Originally 2.0 was to be out beginning of 2017, it is November 2017, as an example. If anyone making 9th age feels that I am personally mad at them or whatever, that is their right. I am not, but they have the right to their feelings, just like I have the right to be annoyed at empty promises....
    #2 - The fluff from WHFB is what we have. I understand why you can't use it, but until you have some REAL NEW FLUFF it is what is pictured by many players when they play, paint or look at their armies. I was super excited to read the fluff that was going to be in the rule book. My friends and I waited for it, salivated over it and then downloaded and sent to people around the world who could not access it. It was disappointing. It is going somewhere, but there is no detail on the Highborne Elves in the fluff besides we sail around and are elves. What little fluff there is mentions terrifying dragons and fierce elven warriors. Dragons are not anything to be feared (except ancient mostly for T7, oops) and our infantry is over-costed or unable to take even a moderate hit.

    #3 - Of course they are not super men, they are elves. Elves with armor, training and experience vastly better than men, or rats. Seriously clanrats can fight elven spearmen one on one. One on ONE. I clearly stated I did not want them to rofl stop, and you said they are designed to support, contest and add power when applied correctly. Okay, how? Here is how this goes down vs:

    Dwarves: Round 1- immediately shoots my flyers, and cav to either destroy or remove them. Ignores my core, (this is a quote) "Absolutely no threat there, I will mop them up after everything else is rendered ineffective." Which, with our point costs is not many casualties, which is not hard to do with 5+ armor across everything in the core (except Lancers). To reply I have Str 3 arrows and spears. Dwarven toughness is what again?

    WotDG: Round 1 He charges. Period. No worry about my troops, my monsters or my shooting. All he has is actual Warriors of the Dark Gods (Chaos Warriors). He doesn't need anything else. ST 3 arrows do not pen his armor and his characters can and do see off everything in my army. He literally refuses to play me as he thinks the match up is so ridiculously in his favor, what is the point?

    Lizardmen: Monsters to match my monsters. Magic to match my magic. Core vs Core, they win. Better stats (combat) lets them walk over me.

    Skaven: An actual fight. I do enjoy these match ups, though watching clanrats hold their own against even numbers of spearmen is disheartening. My monster are effective here if I can neutralize her war machines, but this is basically the only even match up that exists in my meta.

    Bottom line, I have now tried 15 different army combination is over 40 games. I never had this problem in 8th edition (and yes, we still play it). We were hoping that 9th age would be our new rule set as it is, in theory, evolving. My friends don't want to play it with HbE as it is not a fight; their words, not mine.

    In the forums I see lots of ideas and criticism in all the elven forums about their core choices. It should not have taken this long to address this. I have made suggestions or other have suggested them.

    It feels like we are talking to a wall, so I stopped and walked away for a year to wait for 2.0. I come back, download and read everything to see what has changed, nothing....in a year.

    In terms of being emotional. Yes, yes I am. I want a good game that can be played. Where skill is more important than what army you are playing. In my meta, the majority of us are constantly laughing at the point costs for different equivalent units in the army lists.

    As stated (several times) I was not trying to pick a fight or an argument. If you perceived it that way, my apologies. I shall return to ignoring 9th age now.
    This is clearly a " GIT GUD" scenario, maybe you should ask for advice/help instead of ranting nonsense?
    Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds- elf hero on foot 2016
  • @Shalontas , thanks for the reference of where the "most magical" etc comes from. You're the first person who has actually answered that question when I've asked it. :)

    I won't belabour any of the above rebuttals. However, you put forward some issues with specific armies which you play against:

    WDG (I play these guys 50% of the time): If he's charging turn one then deployment is key. His Warriors are M4 so you need to start back a touch and use your magic to whittle him down a bit while your Cav / Monsters head for the flanks and set up combo charges.
    - Sword Masters wreck face point for point but you'll want a big block of them.
    - Reavers with music to mess with March tests are also a good trick here. Two units of these guys will slow down an entire flank while you deal with the other side.
    - my regular HBE opponent likes his SeaGuard Ambushing for flank/rear charges and breaking steadfast.

    Vermin Swarm (my main through 7th til 1.0): Please please please don't shoot the slaves. :P You should be removing your wife's chaff then whittling down her bunker while your monsters clean the flanks. Pyro is good here too but don't get caught up with killing the shiny things. Break the bunker and force those characters into combat units. That's the head, the spine of her army will be the Plague Bros or Vermin guard. Either way unless your wife is rediculously skilled in the movement phase you should be able to own that matchup as you say.
    - my usual HBE opponent always brings two units of 20 spears here to work together as a charge and flank or anvil and flank to break steadfast on any unit that is deployed a little too wide. It's a good tactic that is quite successful once you've won the chaff war.

    Lizards: I've not played up against lizards in ages so it's difficult to comment. However, you should have more drops unless there is epic skink factor and the RBT is really useful for creating holes in the lizard line. :)

    Dwarves: Sound like your opponent runs a bit of a gunline. You'll need to hide your monsters (and by the sounds of it you Cav too) unit you take out his canons. You'd be surprised at how effective a big sacrificial block of Archers are here. Put them forward and take out a canon each turn. They will get focus fired for sure but your more expensive stuff which will allow you to win the game will be unscathed and in position to charge or counter charge as required.

    I do have one question: do you use the map packs? They are really good for providing both space to move and cover in equal quantities so that you can really have some movement and strategy intensive games. That usually favours HBE pretty heavily assuming equally good deployment. :)
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    Not sure how Citizen Spears aren't fluffy at their current power level. They're citizen reservists. Conscripts. Flute players and flower arrangers who are occasionally dragged to the mustering field. Not elite elven warriors who have spent centuries doing nothing but perfecting their craft.

    At WS4 they're still on the par with human elite troops in skill level. Oh, and on top of that WS4, they get an extra FiER for superb training. For being citizen reservists, they're more than sufficiently skilled. edit: For comparison, if they'd be humans, they'd just have WS2 and no extra FiER.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Konrad von Richtmark ().

  • New

    Come to think of it, there's actually an intra-armybook inconsistency in the power level of Citizen Spears. Citizen Archers are presumably another troop type of the same kind of reservists, and Highborn Lancers the aristocratic equivalent of the same. Yet, Citizen Archers "only" have BS4 and Highborn Lancers WS4, i.e. the skill level of elite humans, without any extra special rules on top, while Citizen Spears have FiER as well. I can't really think of any reason why spearelves should have a higher relative skill level than the two other kinds of reservists. If any should have it, it should be the nobles, since nobles tend to be more martial in most societies that have them, and they'd have the means to obtain higher skill levels too. But then, WS5 is already elite elf level, so they shouldn't have that.

    In fact, I've argued for a dropping of FiER from spearelves in the past, in part because of this absolute power level discrepancy.