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.

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!

  • Consolidated SE Community Feedback to 2.0 changes

    Hi all,

    Below is a list of consolidated Sylvan Elf Community feedback to proposed 2.0 changes.

    Just to be clear there are many great changes, and we feel our ACS are doing a great job. Where a change is not mentioned it has likely been very well received. But the ACS can't do everything without community support /feedback, and SE seems to have some harsh legacy restrictions placed on them that seem inappropriate to many in the SE community in the current 9th Age rule set. Below is a list of consolidated community feedback on the proposed SE changes for 2.0. I have tried to state the general community consensus as I understand it fairly. Where there are multiple suggested solutions, not all the suggestions are a consensus, but some potentially workable ideas that have been suggested. The great majority of the list relates directly to 2.0 changes, but a couple relate to common complaints arising from the lead up to it (eg,ASAW surveys motivated changes etc). Not all the feedback represents my personal point of view, they're an attempt to consolidate the most commonly expressed issues from the SE community in general.

    Type A

    Pathfinders
    Sylvan Blades should be optional for Pathfinders (and perhaps in general). Pathfinder units without Sylvan Blades should cost less.

    Forest Rangers
    This unit shouldn’t always lose its newly gained movement advantages (Adv6 / Vanguard)when a character joins it. Allow Forest Guardian Kindred to gain those advantages for a fair cost when it deploys with the unit. If necessary restrict this to 0-1, though we note there is already a vanguarding unit that can have characters join, in an army without the characteristic SE ASAW movement strengths. the army with these designated strengths should have these types of advantages.

    Elven Horse
    Practically, nothing changed here because if you wanted a fight mounted character he was WH hence LT already. Reduced Mounts Protection mean it will be taken even less than currently. This change is not worthy of a Type A redesign slot.

    It’s strange, clumsy and unfluffy for the elven horse to have different rules depending who is riding it. And it’s wrong for a druid riding one to take away light troops from a unit they join. Druids don’t have the kind of destructive spells from 8th anymore, this restriction on them being in mobile units in the movement strength army is out of date. Sylvan Elf characters on horses should get light troops, not count towards Fleet of Foot, or both. The multiple levels of restriction here is inappropriate and unfair.

    If we can't get a meaningful redesign of the Elven Horse that makes it work, we should get a different Type A slot.

    Type B

    Blade Dancers
    Base OS 5 is terrible from a fluff perspective (suggested solution under Sylvan Blades below)

    Dance of Disarming Delusions was a rarely used dance before and is now almost completely irrelevant due to the dancers themselves not being able to draw benefit from the dance and the large amount of parry ignoring weapons available to the SE army.

    Possible solutions:
    • Remove the dance for a point reduction
    • Change the effect entirely, example the dance disarms enemy units in cc causing them to loose all weapon effects.
    Shapeshifter
    Many SE players would like this Kindred to be able to take on different animal forms with different characteristics. Understand this may be something for the future book.

    Free Design Slots

    The Wild Huntsmen
    The SE community generally regards the new Frenzy rules as overcomplicated and ill thought out. This is evidenced by army teams already trying to find ways around them. "Moonwalking' is a blight, and directly caused by it. At the very least march tests should not be at -2. Especially on a unit that is in a restricted category due to it’s supposed movement capacity. Personally I think this aim would be better achieved with a simple bonus rather than a complex malus (eg limited time bonus to charge maybe).

    A character special rule or magic item should be considered that lessens or delays the activation of frenzy on Wild Huntsmen, partially to make Wild Hunter kindred characters be sensibly / effectively placed with their own unit.

    Kestrel Knights
    Many players like the changes to Kestrel Knights, however the change from skirmish to ranked is not possible with many players’ established models. Since one of the key appeals of the 9th age to many players is not invalidating their models, the community suggests adding the option of skirmish to Kestrels, since both were options in redesign.

    Magic items
    Living Bark
    Has anti Synergy with both Forest Guardian and Elven Cloak (who are presumably some of its main imagined users). Suggestion: +1 T to replace innate defence. Allow to use mounted (doesn't make sense for the mobility army to have so many items restricted to Infantry only)

    Horn of the Wild Hunt
    Seems to have a very situational effect, that may not have any effect. For such an iconic item, could have a stronger effect. Such as granting Battle Focus (/ fury) / thunderous Charge / frenzy for a turn. Or cancelling Frenzy (and Battle Focus / Thunderous charge) on Wild Huntsmen until it is blown.

    Lurker Guidon
    Many feel this is quite situational and should have the need for contact with Forest Terrain removed (we are an Avoiding Hits army). May depend on cost / how much treesinging gets used in practice.

    War Dancer's Tattoos
    If this gets nerfed just to max 4+ or similar, there may be a riot. SE scored top 5 ASAW on Special Saves, other races have equivalently good things as a potential 3+ ward (like 1+, 4++ easily available), and even if that is not possible there are fairly simple other solutions (like making core book 4++ saves non improvable).

    Magic

    Treesinging
    Sylvan Elves are encouraged not to deploy in forests by this rule which is anti fluff, and seems like it will make movement of forests and elves together clunky and unintuitive (they get in each others way).

    Suggestions:
    • Treesinging should allow whole friendly units entirely inside the forest (only) to move with it. Perhaps at a greater cost when a unit is moved. This would not cause any model displacement issues since the forest acts as a movement tray. This might also help mitigate the relative weakness of our hereditary spell (see below).
    • Treesinging could happen in the movement phase like forests were our units. Would permit a lot more movements.
    Mist Strider (Hereditary Spell)
    This spell seems weak compared to other racial spells, and particularly when compared to a similar spell in WitchcraftRaven’s Wing” especially considering that spell activates an attribute. It is also worth considering that part of this spells effect (unit movement) SE already had in the old Treesinging effect (with more forest synergy), even the weaker effect is not a straight gain, as some other races hereditary spells are. It also has an effect (Aegis 5+) which is partially or fully redundant on many of our units (particularly tree spirits)

    Possible Solutions/ tweaks:
    • Increase Range (24” / 36”)
    • Allow measurement of range from Forest Terrain as well as caster.
    • Increase movement (8”/ 12")
    • Change ranged Aegis 5+ to +1 (max 4+) or some other more broadly applicable protective affect
    • Change the Aegis to reroll hits (as per ASAW avoiding hits)
    • Allow the movement to place the affected unit in combat.
    • Make the spell single minded (better movement OR better protection than currently but only one)
    Specific Suggestions for Hereditary:
    Mist Strider
    Augment, Last one Turn
    [4+] (Non Boosted) Range 16" from caster or any Forest. Immediately after successfully casting this spell, the target may perform an 8" Magical Move and gains fly during this move.
    [*+](Boosted) Range 24" from caster or any Forest. Enemies must re-roll all successful hits on the target

    Shrouding Mist
    Universal, Last one Turn
    7+ Range 12"
    9+ Range 24"
    The targets charge and ranged attack distances are halved. Successful rolls to wound from ranged attacks against the target must be re-rolled.

    Mist Strider
    [6+] Range 24”, 12” Immediately after successfully casting this spell, the target may perform an 12" Magical Move [b]and gains fly during this move.
    (no boosted version)

    Related Issues

    Forest Walker
    Understanding Treesinging and Forest follows are part of our army special rules, Reroll 1’s in the forest (and loss of channel entirely) is still a comparatively very weak army wide special rule (some good players disagree here) and it only got weaker. The loss of channel in the forest should be somehow compensated. Other races are allowed to have bonuses / good things outside their ASAW, we shouldn't just have ours taken away.

    Suggestions:
    • Magic Resistance(+1) in the forest
    • Siphon (+1 Veil token) if at least 1 SE spellcaster is in a forest.
    • "Ranged attacks against enemies partially in forest reroll 1's to wound" in addition to the current CC rule. Would help to punish enemies in forests since we don't have old treesinging AND they will want to go in it because of new Treesinging.



    Scoring
    Loss of scoring on Blade Dancer should be compensated by another unit gaining scoring, since Sylvan Elves now have a big problem in this area, especially with the new secondary objective design. SE don't have scoring as a weakness - plenty of armies have scoring in their specialized / signature troop types, it makes sense SE should

    Possible Solutions:
    • -Give s5 Thicket beasts back scoring
    • -Give Dryad units a “leader of the pack” (champion counts as musicician) type rule to make bigger scoring blocks viable
    • -Make a light troop (eg Fast Cav Heath Riders or skirmish Dryads) scoring in line with our army strength. Speed should be an advantage (not the only one) in scoring.
    Sylvan Blades
    Sylvan Blades should not increase OS by 1 for SE units, since the practical effect that has on Sylvan Units is to decrease their OS by 1 to compensate, often in quite unfluffy ways (eg Blade Dancers with lower base OS than Elven counterparts). SE units should have their base OS not reduced instead. It just both feels bad and is mechanically pointless.

    Druids
    Should regain LD9. Ld8 unfairly restricts their movement / viability compared to other elves. SE may have less "Bubble leadership" than other elves, but we still scored fairly highly in "brave away from general".

    Secondly druids should be able to be light troops when mounted. This restriction seems onerous and unfair on an army who's top voted strength is manoeuvrability, especially when an army with a voted that would tend to indicate a weakness in manoeuvrability does get it (Golin Shamans on wolves have m9 light troops). This seems really unfair.

    Alternately / addtionally, the Druid should get a sizable price reduction, because it is a very sizable limitations. This nerf was fairly arbitrary and unwarranted.

    Fleet of Foot
    Reconsider this limit and what goes into it, including separating riders from mounts, whether a unit with very restricted movement like Wild Hunters with the new more restrictive frenzy etc should still go in it

    In General
    Sylvan Elves should be allowed to have their ASAW strengths in movement. Being the only army with all the strengths in movement, this should be a significant advantage over even other fast armies. This does not fit conceptually with having restrictions on movement that other armies do not have. If that does not fit the design goals of the 9th Age (due to restricting the avoidance playstyle or otherwise), or can't be structured in such a way as to help the army engage favourably rather than avoid, SE should be redesigned to have other strengths to compensate the mobility strengths they are not actually permitted. This might help with matchup dependance as a bonus.

    One particularly egregious example of this is: Characters should not take away the (movement) Strengths of units they are added to. This does not fit the idea of characters conceptually at all (to take away the army strength of their units) and doesn't generally happen in other armies. Characters in the SE army are subject to several layers of harsh restrictions unique to them: for example counting towards a second particularly restricted category (Fleet of Foot) if they are mounted, taking away light troops or other unit advantages when they are added to units, having less protection options (so being hard to bring successfully outside units), having many magic items restricted to infantry models only (in the mobility army) or very limited to specific kindreds etc. This means many competitive SE builds have few characters, which is presumably not a design goal. Although different, SE should have be able to fairly fit competitive characters to a similar level as other armies.

    Lastly, the best way to avoid avoidance builds in SE armies is to give us good reasons to engage rather than retaining or adding further restrictions. Avoidance will never be completely restricted, but it can be eliminated by giving us more effective ways to play.

    I will try to keep this list updated as more information comes to hand.

    The post was edited 42 times, last by Hachiman Taro ().

  • @Hachiman Taro Great work!

    I have one addition that came from the 2.0 update.

    Blade Dancers:
    Dance of Disarming Delusions was a rarely used dance before and is now even less relevant due to the dancers themselves not being able to draw benefit from the dance and the large amount of parry ignoring weapons available to the SE army.

    Possible solutions:
    • Remove the dance for a point reduction
    • Change the effect entirely, example the dance disarms enemy units in cc causing them to loose all weapon effects.
  • Ryasin wrote:

    @Hachiman Taro Great work!

    I have one addition that came from the 2.0 update.

    Blade Dancers:
    Dance of Disarming Delusions was a rarely used dance before and is now even less relevant due to the dancers themselves not being able to draw benefit from the dance and the large amount of parry ignoring weapons available to the SE army.

    Possible solutions:
    • Remove the dance for a point reduction
    • Change the effect entirely, example the dance disarms enemy units in cc causing them to loose all weapon effects.

    Great idea. Added it.
  • While this is a good initiative, I do think it's a bit premature.
    I don't want to put a damper on anyone's enthusiasm and commitment to helping the project, and I should state that I did not participate in this SE book revision at all.

    The majority of our community haven't even seen the full book, let alone played games with it. One guess is as good as another, but let me state a couple of examples from past versions where the community's reaction was later proven to be exaggerated:

    - Briar Maidens: the entire SE subforum decreed that without multiple shots (2) the unit was useless in v1.0 . Personal experience, but also the amount of units present in SE lists even today proved this to be false.

    - Kestrel Knights: first, the passage from 3 to 2 wounds was criticized as a nerf, then the fact that skirmishers lost their "contraction" ability was equally considered as the final blow that would make the unit unplayable. Kestrels are still widely considered the best SE unit and the most feared one by our opponents.

    Some comments to the subjects you raised (and again, I stress that this is my opinion as a SE player and not an Design team stance)

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Pathfinders
    Sylvan Blades should be optional for Pathfinders (and perhaps in general). Pathfinder units without Sylvan Blades should cost less.
    I can assure you that the pricing of these models is based on their shooting ability and their battlefield role as scouts and harrassment units. They probably do not pay a premium for the sylvan blades, which are mainly a "fluff" choice. In my opinion, it would be an unnecessary complication to make the blades optional; treat them as a "freebie" more than anything else.
    Cost will be evaluated depending on how they end up performing, but I suspect that they'll do a lot better than in v1.3 due to the sylvan bow upgrade.


    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Blade Dancers
    Loss of scoring should be compensated by another unit gaining scoring, since Sylvan Elves now have a big problem in this area, especially with the new secondary objective design.
    Looking at the (updated) scenarios, I have the impression that scoring on Bladedancers would be a curse more than a boon half of the time:
    In capture the flags you relegate your shock troops to units that need to be protected instead of sending them out to do the job.
    In king of the hill they'd be automatically excluded due to being light troops.
    In Gold Diggers you'd lose out in maneuverability due to having no ranks.

    Scoring BD were a double edged blade, I feel that they're in a good place now; their damage output alone should be incentive enough to bring them to the table. (remember that they ignore Parry now, as well).

    As for the scoring weakness of the SE, I'd wait and see: forest guardians and forest rangers are both very decent scorers, and past experience has shown that small dryad units are also resilient MSU scorers (I don't like them, but many people do). The ability to reliably get spells that boost your strength may see the return of scoring thicket beasts, too.

    I'm not saying we're stellar when it comes to scoring, but rather that we still have options.


    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Treesinging
    Treesinging should allow whole friendly units entirely inside the forest (only) to move with it. Otherwise Sylvan Elves are encouraged not to deploy in forests which is anti fluff. Also, this does not cause any model displacement issues since the forest acts as a movement tray. This might also help mitigate the relative weakness of our hereditary spell (see below).
    It would be cool to have the same v1.3 mechanic of moving forests to provide steadfast and reroll 1's on units that are engaged in combat outside of them. And treesurfing was also fun.
    However, the main strength of the new Treesinging is that it is virtually free and that it cannot be stopped. Altering the woodland battlefield as we see fit is very much aligned with the background of the SE, and it has a very "cinematic" feel to it. I think it will be very useful, whether you use it to open up firing lanes or to impose DT tests on future charges from enemy units. It is a new tool, we'll figure out ways to use it.


    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Forest Walker
    Reroll 1’s in the forest (and loss of channel entirely) is a very weak army wide special rule compared to other races. The los of channel in the forest should be somehow compensated. Other races are allowed to have bonuses / good things outside their ASAW, we shouldn't just have ours taken away.

    Yes and no; in a way, our army-wide rule is the following: May deploy a free forest, may use Treesinging on any forest on the battlefield, has strider (forest), rerolls 1's to wound inside forests and makes all forests count as DT for enemies regardless of unit type.
    Comparisons across army books are what they are, and I do feel that our army-wide rules not only fit the fluff, but also give the army a distinct advantage and open up unique playstyles.


    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Druids
    Should regain LD9. Ld8 unfairly restricts their movement / viability compared to other elves. SE may have less "Bubble leadership" than other elves, but we still scored fairly highly in "brave away from general". This nerf was fairly arbitrary and unwarranted.
    Realistically, a druid can go inside one of the following units: Sylvan Archers, Forest Guard, Forest Rangers, Bladedancers, Heath Riders, Briar Maidens. Out of these units, two are ItP, one is Ld9 base and the rest is Ld8 but can have access to magic banners that mitigate the issue of panic.

    I am fairly certain that there are ways to avoid having your wizard run off the board that do not involve boosting him to Prince/Treefather Ld level.


    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Mist Strider (Hereditary Spell)
    This spell seems weak compared to other racial spells, and particularly when compared to a similar spell in WitchcraftRaven’s Wing” especially considering that spell activates an attribute. It also has an effect (Aegis 5+) which is partially or fully redundant on many of our units (particularly tree spirits)
    As far as I remember, this is one of the few hereditary spells that can be replicated. It also has a fairly low cost. With the scoring being what it is, getting one or two movement spells to help out when capturing objectives is a big deal. It also opens up aggressive play options, where you can not only propel your unit forward (or up a flank) with speed, but can also make sure it doesn't die to shooting and magic.

    The combination with Forest Guard and Forest Rangers is obvious (after all, they benefit the most out of the 5+ aegis), but this can also come in handy in shoot-outs (protecting your Sylvan Archers or your Pathfinders/Sentinels).

    As far as tree spirits are concerned, they might not benefit from Aegis, but the movement boost is a huge deal for them: In most of my games in v1.3, winning or losing against a defensive list depended on two things: whether the kestrels will be able to infiltrate, and whether the treefathers will get in combat early enough to be able to grind the opposition down. A treefather moves 10" per turn, making a turn 3 charge possible, but also easy to avoid if the enemy starts backing up. Now imagine a treefather that can move 18" in a turn; the charge on turn 3 is guaranteed while turn 2 is now viable, and that is a lot more important than a boost of his ward save.

    That is not to mention the combinations with charging units; quite often, when you fail a charge your units are left in a bad spot; having one or two copies of this spell means that you can attempt long, potentially game-winning charges with less inherent risk.

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Kestrel Knights
    Many players like the changes to Kestrel Knights, however the change from skirmish to ranked is not possible with many players’ established models. Since one of the key appeals of the 9th age to many players is not invalidating their models, the community suggests adding the option of skirmish to Kestrels, since both were options in redesign.

    Kestrels used to rank up for combat up until a year ago, so most of the models dating back to that point will have a way to rank up. A nifty trick I've found that not only makes that easier but also allows me to field more units of the rare to find warhawks, is to put a middle "filler" base between two Kestrels.

    In game terms, the way that skirmish works would have made the kestrels too expensive (as should any fast combat unit with a 180 degree threat angle be). I also remember that back in the v1.3 changes people kept asking for closed formation for kestrels, as they'd be able to get more models in base to base contact. In a way, our kestrels got the best out of both worlds with Hard target and closed formation.



    In short, this beta is indeed a time for testing and providing feedback, but I don't think it will do us any good to jump to conclusions; what is needed is hands-on experience with the book; the games will show where there's space for improvement.
    Making up Battle Reports since 1995
    9th Age Battle Reports

    This week I've been painting...

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

  • @SmithF

    I agree with you on the whole. Bear in mind, this consolidation of feedback / impressions was borne out of a (soft) request from our ACS @DJWoodelf to have the general feedback of 100+ pages of the 2.0 progress thread consolidated into an easier to read list.

    It's not necessarily a direct list of perfect demands, it's more a reflection of the impressions the community has fed back so far on specific changes. The attempt to keep it somewhat concise might make it seem more terse than ideal. But having a somewhat compact reference is more important I feel, as long as everyone understands that purpose.

    Equally, though everything may not be spot on without the complete picture and everyone accepts that, I think there are some valid conceptual concerns in there that might be useful to have in one summarised place, for the ACS or others to refer to the generally expressed community view, and perhaps use it to make a case / as data for change where it is reasonable.

    I will endeavour to keep it updated as the picture becomes more clear with more complete information.

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

  • Great list

    I don't mind:

    - That we don't have a Vanguard character for the Rangers (but M6 seems a must),
    - I don't reckon we should have LD9 druids (wizard led Sylvan seems inappropriate)
    - Sylvan blades on Pathfinders is not something I mind
    - Forest Walker is all right. Armies should be even. Army special rules need not be

    But aside from that you echo my wishes/concerns as they currently stand
  • DJWoodelf wrote:

    Please try NOT to discuss here and let everybody post his/her proposals without being commented.
    Oh, I didn't see (and still don't) the "don't step on the grass" sign. ;)

    Seeing as this is a community thread aiming at consolidating feedback, and not at all an internal ACS thread, I don't see where the harm lies in some civilized discussion. Feel free to move my post to a more appropriate place if it bothers you in any way.

    @Hachiman Taro
    I get where you're coming from, and I appreciate the effort. I just couldn't resist the temptation of engaging in discussion with you guys about my favorite army. I think that SE have a lot going for them, as well as a couple of hurdles to overcome in the new edition: I'm looking forward to all the tactics brainstorming that will take place in this subforum in a few weeks' time.

    Smith
    Making up Battle Reports since 1995
    9th Age Battle Reports

    This week I've been painting...
  • Hereditary Spell

    As it stands the spell does not have great synergy with the whole army. Forest spirits benefit well from the movement side whilst elves do not and vice versa in regards to the aegis half of the spell. Aim, to get a spell that is good for all units.

    Shrouding Mist
    Universal, Last one Turn

    7+ Range 12"
    9+ Range 24"

    The targets charge and ranged attack distances are halved. Successful rolls to wound from ranged attacks against the target must be re-rolled.

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

  • Scoring

    With the out right removal of a scoring unit and the change in 2.0 game scenarios, I think we will have problems in this area of the game competitively. This is hard to fix as most of our troop types have the Light Troop rule, which does not allow them to count for scoring in all game types. For this reason I think Blade Dancers losing scoring was the correct decision, it does leave a hole in our scoring options though.

    Fix 1
    Strength 5 Thicket Beasts retain scoring. We already pay a double upgrade tax, with the increase in model price combined with a character to have the ability. If Tusker Cavalry can have scoring I see no problem with a slower weaker unit also having it.


    Fix 2
    Give the Treeman the option to buy scoring. I can not think of another example of a monster with scoring rule so this maybe a little out there. However, out of units that currently do not have scoring the Treeman is the best suited to the new scenarios.

    Wellspring of Nature 0-1 40pts
    Unit gains Scoring
  • Consolidated SE Community Feedback to 2.0 changes

    Im actually leaning towards Pathfinder having the anti armor shot and a multishot as this gives Them a niche shot and a multitask shot. Where the +to hit combined with anti is making Them More niche. If having to chose which One of the niche shots to keep, anti armor is Most needed imo. Also if pw is freebie, keep it for the fluff!

    Im on the bandwagon for thickets s5 ap 2 permanent and increase price to Taste. They are not pulling any weight at s4. I know, i know, they are an anvil, but they have dissapointed me every time Ive used Them without s5. Makes for Better combo with our Low strenght shooting aswell.

    Scoring dryad skirmish and fast cav heathriders are interesting!

    Otherwise i pretty much agree with everything Else!

    Sendt fra min TA-1021 med Tapatalk
  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    In General
    Sylvan Elves should be allowed to have their ASAW strengths in movement. Being the only army with all the strengths in movement, this should be a significant advantage over even other fast armies. This does not fit conceptually with having restrictions on movement that other armies do not have.

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Loss of scoring should be compensated by another unit gaining scoring, since Sylvan Elves now have a big problem in this area, especially with the new secondary objective design.

    Possible Solutions:


    -Give s5 Thicket beasts back scoring

    -Give Dryad units a “leader of the pack” (champion counts as musicician) type rule to make bigger scoring blocks viable

    -Make a light troop (eg Fast Cav Heath Riders) scoring in line with our army strength
    Quoted for emphasis. I have advocated for scoring only on core units in the past for similar reasons, including making core units more unique/stronger. However something similar has already been accomplished for many armies in that their 'signature' units have scoring. This allows an army to play to its identity. We currently, cannot.

    For SE this would translate into scoring skirmishers and fast cavalry. Possibly even with ambush (see BH). This change free's up list building if done in conjunction with looser FoF restrictions. I feel we all miss the importance of how much this effects list design and sometimes we look for other changes to compensate (better items, stronger shooting, magic paths etc).

    Lastly I do not personally feel scoring TBs fit the identity of SE as I see them closer to a treefather in role of anvil but that is certainly debatable.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • zqn365 wrote:

    Im actually leaning towards Pathfinder having the anti armor shot and a multishot as this gives Them a niche shot and a multitask shot. Where the +to hit combined with anti is making Them More niche. If having to chose which One of the niche shots to keep, anti armor is Most needed imo. Also if pw is freebie, keep it for the fluff!
    Since SA and Pathfinders both got sylvan bows now, I do believe giving them multi shots would cause going up with price, since unit of 5 do the same job (same stats with -1 BS for MS) as unit of ten SA, having 5 wound less, - 1 to hit (skirmish), and march and shoot.
  • @Hachiman Taro

    Very good initiative, you have my vote! :)

    While I more or less agree with everything you say I have to point out the following:

    - the forest follows is a very good and fluffy rule and I agree with @SmithF here. I’d like to keep it as is even though our druids should get cheaper due to the loss of the channel ability

    - druids should not get back their ld9 imho, it is unfluffy. However they should get a proper discount considering they force our army to pay a “additional character to be general” tax. With the status they are now they should cost just above a goblin shaman because they don’t bring any more utility on the battlefield

    - hereditary spell: I think it should have one single effect whatever it is. If we mix up either the effects will be milder or the casting cost will be higher. I personally would prefer something like range 24”, 12” movement, 6+
  • Made some modifications based on feedback (made scoring issue more prominent, added other view on Druids (should get price discount, added some other specific suggestions for hereditary spell).

    @SmithF Your expertise and feedback are always welcomed and indeed very sought after here, please always feel encouraged to share them. Most of the discussion happens in the 2.0 progress thread right now, where you are welcome to comment further on this thread too.