Consolidated SE Community Feedback to 2.0 changes

  • Feedback

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

  • Mahlzeit wrote:

    I crunched some numbers, and I think I like the possibility that the WWB enchantment, the Black stag thing and wild hunter gives us offensively.
    Hitting most units in the game on 2’s, no parry, 9 attacks S6, fear, battle focus can get nasty pretty damn quick.

    Downsides are of course the armour enchantments itself giving only innate defense, frenzy and the -2 to defensive skill and checking against LD7. Best armour save here is 4+, so your 600+ points prince is protected by a 4+/4++ at best.

    I don’t think this is a worthy investment under the current iteration.
    The problem is the AP2....
  • Ciara wrote:

    I dunno, i have kinda different feeling. For me, wild riders are better than in 1.3. Same power in charge (we swapped one attack from deer to battle focus on rider), agi 7 on charge and new frenzy.
    the damage output might be comparable, but their defensive skill 3 coupled with their already very fragile defensive stats won’t help them when the return attacks start to come in, which they will. I can’t see how a price increase was justified with the new frenzy rules, since elves pay a premium for their high weapon skill, LD and initiative.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • Mahlzeit wrote:

    the damage output might be comparable, but their defensive skill 3 coupled with their already very fragile defensive stats won’t help them when the return attacks start to come in, which they will. I can’t see how a price increase was justified with the new frenzy rules, since elves pay a premium for their high weapon skill, LD and initiative.
    Defensive skill does not matter for me. However i would like see drop in price for that which will matter for me. And everybody else i guess.
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • Ciara wrote:

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    the damage output might be comparable, but their defensive skill 3 coupled with their already very fragile defensive stats won’t help them when the return attacks start to come in, which they will. I can’t see how a price increase was justified with the new frenzy rules, since elves pay a premium for their high weapon skill, LD and initiative.
    Defensive skill does not matter for me. However i would like see drop in price for that which will matter for me. And everybody else i guess.
    We agree on the last aspect for sure.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • Mahlzeit wrote:

    the damage output might be comparable, but their defensive skill 3 coupled with their already very fragile defensive stats won’t help them when the return attacks start to come in, which they will. I can’t see how a price increase was justified with the new frenzy rules, since elves pay a premium for their high weapon skill, LD and initiative.
    Frenzy has been nerfed, no doubt. I'm not entirely sure how the combo of Frenzy, Battle Focus, Fearless and -2 DWS has been costed in other books, but I would assume a slight point decrease. But we have to take into account that our Wild Huntsmen (and the Kindred) retained their extra attack (and keeps it despite losing combat, although that's a negligible bonus) and I think that's worth some points.
    Also, I don't think we should underestimate Battle Focus. It translates into a +1 to hit, which works even when we hit on 2+, so, statistically, we hit with every attack we have. And the maximum number of hits is (theoretically) twice our number of attacks. On average, it means nothing, but we do have the possibility of "scoring a critical hit", and that's worth a lot.
    On the whole, I think the point increase (which is only 20 for either the Kindred or per unit of WH) is justified.

    Whether or not the new Frenzy changes the dynamic of the units to such a degree, that they don't belong in FoF is another discussion.

    ...

    But they don't.
  • SimonDK wrote:

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    the damage output might be comparable, but their defensive skill 3 coupled with their already very fragile defensive stats won’t help them when the return attacks start to come in, which they will. I can’t see how a price increase was justified with the new frenzy rules, since elves pay a premium for their high weapon skill, LD and initiative.
    Frenzy has been nerfed, no doubt. I'm not entirely sure how the combo of Frenzy, Battle Focus, Fearless and -2 DWS has been costed in other books, but I would assume a slight point decrease. But we have to take into account that our Wild Huntsmen (and the Kindred) retained their extra attack (and keeps it despite losing combat, although that's a negligible bonus) and I think that's worth some points.Also, I don't think we should underestimate Battle Focus. It translates into a +1 to hit, which works even when we hit on 2+, so, statistically, we hit with every attack we have. And the maximum number of hits is (theoretically) twice our number of attacks. On average, it means nothing, but we do have the possibility of "scoring a critical hit", and that's worth a lot.
    On the whole, I think the point increase (which is only 20 for either the Kindred or per unit of WH) is justified.

    Whether or not the new Frenzy changes the dynamic of the units to such a degree, that they don't belong in FoF is another discussion.

    ...

    But they don't.
    I like battle focus on the WH, actually. As you said, it evens out the 1s that you roll when rolling 6s; and most elite infantry our WH will be hitting on 2s, and can even go beyond the initial number of attacks if you’re lucky.

    I don’t like what frenzy has done to the unit itself, though. Yes, this might be me not wanting too many downsides and all the advantages of a re-design, but their MV9 makes their bate-range 16”, which is a lot for this unit. Cheap chaff can now bait them into bad positions to get obliterated next turn, and there’s little you can do about it. They don’t have to overrun, but does that matter when your opponent simply feeds them 150 points of throw-away troops and binds your 310+ unit to their doom?

    Old frenzy was reliable with LD9, yes; and the overrun was the bad part. Now, they got rid of the overrun and made WH react to every threat with a good chance. Might be closer to the background of frenzy itself, but this is our elite cavalry. It shouldn’t feel like a throw-away unit itself.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • Mahlzeit wrote:

    there’s little you can do about it.

    Lol-What? Sorry, don't want to come off as argumentative, but we have the best chaff clearing ability in the entire game. We have loads of options to deal with this issue, between Pathfinders that hit long range soft cover targets on 2's to Heath Riders that have a 34'' Str 4 threat range to simply turning your wild hunters to face the opposite direction. I've used Wild Riders in almost every game this edition and I have the strong impression that people on this forum are using them wrong. Or rather, using them how they used to be used.

    WH used to be a rush unit, move into a flank position turn 1 to threaten charges turn 2. They aren't that any more, they aren't even a flanking unit any more really. Now they are a late game unit, wanting to be used turn 3/4 to charge head-long assault into depleted units to delete them or into full units that our Archers couldn't hope to reasonably decimate in the turns remaining and suicide-slaughter. Keep them back a turn or 2, behind a hill or facing backwards, try taking a bigger unit of 6 or 7, take a turn or two to remove the fast chaff, then use the Hunters. It's worked very well for me, with the Wild Hunters being used alongside an avoidance dragon to make late game charges and decimate units that I can't really deal with from range.

    Just my opinion of course, and they are still expensive and fragile, but we can't pretend any other unit in our roster does the same kind of impact damage as Hunters do. And that makes them invaluable to me, as it allows me to get points my avoidance list never would.
  • Alexwellace wrote:

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    there’s little you can do about it.
    Lol-What? Sorry, don't want to come off as argumentative, but we have the best chaff clearing ability in the entire game. We have loads of options to deal with this issue, between Pathfinders that hit long range soft cover targets on 2's to Heath Riders that have a 34'' Str 4 threat range to simply turning your wild hunters to face the opposite direction. I've used Wild Riders in almost every game this edition and I have the strong impression that people on this forum are using them wrong. Or rather, using them how they used to be used.

    WH used to be a rush unit, move into a flank position turn 1 to threaten charges turn 2. They aren't that any more, they aren't even a flanking unit any more really. Now they are a late game unit, wanting to be used turn 3/4 to charge head-long assault into depleted units to delete them or into full units that our Archers couldn't hope to reasonably decimate in the turns remaining and suicide-slaughter. Keep them back a turn or 2, behind a hill or facing backwards, try taking a bigger unit of 6 or 7, take a turn or two to remove the fast chaff, then use the Hunters. It's worked very well for me, with the Wild Hunters being used alongside an avoidance dragon to make late game charges and decimate units that I can't really deal with from range.

    Just my opinion of course, and they are still expensive and fragile, but we can't pretend any other unit in our roster does the same kind of impact damage as Hunters do. And that makes them invaluable to me, as it allows me to get points my avoidance list never would.
    hey man, no need to apologize. The thing is, our archers can’t clear everything. Chaff can be throwaway units, but if it’s possible to take out a threat like WH, sturdier blocks can be taken as well, which will slaughter the WH in a round.

    I used to take them every game, yes, as a flank unit of 6 with shields - because that’s where MV9 cavalry belongs - on the flank. I don’t intend to make the unit face away from enemy units, because I find it silly and not very immersive.
    Sure, hiding behind a hill works, but it takes away points that aren’t actually working for you, in the grand scheme of the game. They’re dead points until turn 3/4, and can’t do anything unlike pathfinders or Sentinels which stay out of most ranges and shoot.

    I guess I don’t like their quite low/average reliability when it comes to moving around the sides, laying traps with long charges. You gotta keep them out of 16”+X where x is the March movement of the next enemy unit, or take the risk. Meh, gonna wait and see how it goes down after the “hot fix”, and if frenzy is still the same in the BRB.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • Mahlzeit wrote:

    I don’t like what frenzy has done to the unit itself, though. Yes, this might be me not wanting too many downsides and all the advantages of a re-design, but their MV9 makes their bate-range 16”, which is a lot for this unit. Cheap chaff can now bait them into bad positions to get obliterated next turn, and there’s little you can do about it. They don’t have to overrun, but does that matter when your opponent simply feeds them 150 points of throw-away troops and binds your 310+ unit to their doom?

    Old frenzy was reliable with LD9, yes; and the overrun was the bad part. Now, they got rid of the overrun and made WH react to every threat with a good chance. Might be closer to the background of frenzy itself, but this is our elite cavalry. It shouldn’t feel like a throw-away unit itself.
    I agree and disagree*: The old Frenzy only mattered on the overrun, true, and that put some restrictions on how you played them. The new Frenzy puts different (and, imo, more severe) restrictions on how you play them, but tbh, I don't feel like I play them that much different, and I'm honestly not sure I'd play them differently if they lost Frenzy tomorrow.
    I've only ever made them work in Shooty/Counterpunch-lists, where I held them back untill late game. Their problem has never been Frenzy (in some rare situations, the forced overrun caused problems), but the fact that they get crippled or deleted by a minimal ranged threat from the opponent.
    I can understand why some people would think of them as unplayable, but that opinion seems very much the same as it was in 1.3 (except maybe a bit more hyperbolic now :) ).
    I agree that 16" and LD7 is a long range and a low number, but the way I play them, it's doesn't seem that likely to happen. 16" from my backest (furthest back?) unit is very close to my front line and well within 20" of my overeager Archers.

    *I've only played a couple of games with WH in 2.0, and not all with traditional setups (2-3 games with 8xWH with Shields and BoSM+super-Prince on Stag), so don't take my word for gospel :)
  • Our Archers can’t clear everything, they can’t clear blocks of T4 units, or units with better than a 4+ save. But they can clear chaff, very effectively.

    Wild Hunters can clear reduced T4 blocks (7 guys get 14 wounds through) or armour saves of 4+ Or better. So they have a target.

    Saying they are dead points until they are used is a silly argument that can be applied to any combat unit in the game. As long as they perform their role ( which they do better now than before) then no matter when they do it they’re worth it. It’s fair to say that every turn they don’t do their role is a chance for them to die, but in reality with mv9 they can hang back safely and move forward to threaten almost anywhere with a turns notice. Maybe it’s just the basic synergy that they have with an army as shooty as mine, but int 7 + reliable Str 5 En masse + a shorter possible frenzy bait range makes them fit perfectly for a late game search and destroy cruise missile.
  • Perhaps I wasn’t expressing myself correctly: “not using them” isn’t supposed to mean to put them in close combat turn 1/2, but to pose a threat. To let the opponent walk an expensive unit in range of WH and perhaps kestrels/an Elk character on the flanks. You know, multiple threats at a time, layers of charge ranges so you can get some multi charges off. For that, they can easily be baited into charging before the time is right to strike.

    I admit, my experience with 2.0 is limited, with WH even less this edition. Being forced on how to play a unit by default is a bit, tedious, no? If the only way, the “right” way, to play WH now is to put them away for 3 turns to mop up points on turn 4, then I’d rather get another unit of kestrels.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • Not tedious to me, but that's perhaps because the Wild Hunters and the Dragon in my list have similar expected engage times. In my list, the role of the Wild Hunters is to be used alongside the Dragon to nuke a unit into the ground with 20+ wounds in a single charge on turn 4+, because at this point in the game even if all my shooting was around it wouldn't be able to punch through that effectively.

    IMHO I've been put off Kestrals for the same role, their damage out put simply isn't on the same level. Too many times have I seen Kestrals go in and only do 5/7 wounds, good, but not enough. They are useful because they perform a role no other unit can, and if I have to play them a certain way to best full fill that goal then that's how they'll see play.

    But that's fine if not all units fit all play styles.
  • Hi, I just wanted to say something I have been thinking about. Maybe somebody posted something similar already, but I have not managed to find something like this. Anyway, I just wanna make clear that I am speaking by my own experience; many players may have had totally different experiences.

    There is a lot of dislike to the fact that SE are the only army whose fast cavalry has a % restriction. Even worse if you consider that mounted characters count towards this category, and there is nothing similar for characters of other races (except when they ride monsters).

    Let's think, why was is necessary to implement this restriction (Fleet of Foot)?

    Well, in my opinion, some type of restriction was needed to prevent different types of "extreme builds", not just SE. I play other armies too, and when I saw the restrictions for SE, my thoughts were as follows:

    Restriction on Unseen Arrows: "OK, I think this is kinda fair."

    Restriction on Fleet of foot (FoF): "I am not sure this is OK..."

    Characters count towards FoF: "This is ridiculous."

    So, why was I not sure that the restriction of FoF was OK? Well, let's study what was happening with the "evasion builds of SE" before the restriction was implementd:

    - There were complains that SE evasion builds were too frustrating to play agasint. Some players even considered it OP: I do consider there is truth in these words, but they are not absolutely correct. Remember I am saying what I was observing before the FoF category was implemented: I saw many tournament builds that did not seem to have considered the possibility of facing an army with high mobility. Some of these builds did really well at tournaments. What I think was happening was that high evasion builds were not very popular, so players built they armies considering that they were not going to face a high evasion army. As a result, there were cases where if they managed to play all their matches in a tournament without facing a high evasion army, they did really well in the tournament, but if they faced a high mobility army (such as a typical evasion build of SE), they did not perform well in that battle, and that could make them lose enough positions in the final score of the tournament. Therefore, this players blamed "the SE and their mobility builds", saying that it is unfair and OP.

    Now, I have played tournaments with different races and always build my army considering the possibility of facing high evasion armies, including high evasion SE armies. This was one of the reasons why I did not find fighting evasion builds a HUGE problem. The other reasons are that: I play SE too, so I know the army, and I have played against SE, so I know how to fight them. In other words, I have experience fighting SE and evasion builds. What I want to say is: when people claimed that evasion builds were OP or unfair to play against, how much of that idea was actually originated due to the lack of experience to fight high evasion armies or to the fact that they did not consider that they were going to face one evasion build when they were creating their army for a tournament? Has anyone else ever seen a player performing badly against a high mobility army, making the incorrect decisions during battle as he had never fought against evasion lists, seeming that he did not take any of the options of his army to fight against mobility armies, and then saying: "SE mobility is just too unfair and OP"?

    Now, I am not saying that everything was OK with the SE evasion/mobility before the restrictions were implemented, just saying that it was not as bad as many players made it look like. I do recognize that something was to be done to limit or discourage high mobility builds. And something was done about that: They implemented the secondary objectives systems, that I consider an excellent implementation. This way, if a mobility list wanted to be escaping around and shooting all game, they were going to pay a price: they were going to lose 3 victory points, and give the opposing player 3 points, for a total difference of 6.

    However, it is a possibility that the secondary objectives systems was not really enough, so they implemented the Fleet of Foot restriction for SE. I think the restriction is overall maybe good idea, but there were somethings I did not like... maybe the fact that this very particular restriction was made upon an army that is not characterized for having many different units to choose from? Or many different styles to choose from?(compared to other armies, of course). Overall, I think this restriction is OK. The precise percentage of the restriction can be an issue to be discussed, as well as what units should count towards FoF.

    But, for reasons I still do not understand, the rules team went even beyond: they decided to make that every character that is mounted, and that mount is not a monster, should count to FoF category.

    In other words, the game implemented 3 important rules that discouraged or restricted evasion lists of SE, all in a very short period of time (or was it all at the same time?):
    - Implementation of secondary objectives
    - Fleet of Foot category
    - Mounted character count towards FoF (unless mount is a monster).

    All these decisions were made as a sudden violent change, instead of making less violent more gradual changes? And that was maybe because there were lot of players that complained a lot about SE evasion style who maybe they did never consider the possibility of fighting against evasion lists in tournaments when they were creating their army lists or they never were able to get experience in battle against those lists?

    As I said, my opinion is that secondary objectives is a good idea, FoF category should maybe need to be polished a little, but mounted characters counting towards Fleet of Foot is ridiculous.

    Now, maybe a player who reads this post was one that complained about SE mobility . Be honest with yourself and with the rest, and ask yourself these questions:
    - When I faced SE evasive lists and found it so frustrating in tournaments, is it possible that I did not consider that I was maybe going to face them, when I was creating my army list, and did not include enough units to fight an evasive playstyle?
    - When I knew that I was having having difficulties against SE mobile lists, did I bother to study SE armies and speak with other players and forums to see what could I do against them?
    - Do mounted Sylvan Elves characters actually deserve to count towards a category of light cavalry in the SE army if they are mounted, or is it OK if they do not count towards that category if they are mounted?

    I would appreciate your opinions on this. No intention to upset anyone here. And I know rules team are doing their best on this game.

    Thanks, sorry for writing so much.

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

  • @Chip you're not wrong and it is something that has been actively discussed ever since and is being actively discussed internally right now.

    Personally I share the be lift that extreme avoidance builds are a bit obnoxious because they have the potential to make the game boring and are excessively Rock Paper Scissors (they beat some builds easily and are beaten by some other builds easily, neither is super fun). But it's a very complex issue to get right with an army that is very shooty and maneuverable. We are definitely working on it! And hope to be moving closer to the ideal set up soon. Those conversations are VERY active right now :)
  • Yeah I wouldn't worry overly about that if the hotfix goes the way I think. When I was taking about avoidance I really meant extreme shooty avoidance, ie a list that is designed purely to dance around a slower opponent and shoot them to death with minimal or no engagement. That's a bit of a bugbear, though there are various views how available/ powerful that playstyle should be, a lot of our opponents don't like it.