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

  • Rule : cults

    What/why is the problem ?
    Currently cults bring more restrictions (character joining units + lose of KI) than advantages (a rule that can be directly add to the profile : hatred/strider/shooting bonus/"a why do that thing have such a hight price"). And the restriction with character is pretty bad as they are already pretty anti-synergic with a cult joining an other (Yema is slowed by non-Yema character and vice-versa, Cadaron character are useless as we don't have big shooting weapon (the assassin don't count as presently he can join all units), Olaron is for "general only", Nabh is for "killy character" (and you lose KI which is very valuable for character, so it's just a fair trade for the character and that's don't bring anything to any unit). The reason where balance is involved are so few and can be bypassed, I can see no use of all these limitations.
    In short, the rules are fluff, but that's all.

    How to solve it ?

    1) Expand the cult mess but add a bonus for dealing with
    All units must have a cult (even the now affilited to fleetcommander/beastmaster), some have muliple option like legionnaries/corsairs, some limited like chariot (raptor olaron/nabh - no Yema !), the only exception can be monster.
    + Cult rivalry : in a melee, if the friendly units engaged belongs to differents cult, all unit in the melee with cult rivalry gain detah trance. (or other subtential bonus) (this represent the competition intensified by the presence of rival in the melee)
    This emphasis the multi-charge effects already present in the book (petrifying stare, academy banner, banner of Dar Geacos), there will be restriction but it will be understandable as the effects can be powerfull.
    NB : the monocult army have to be reworked to counterbalance the lose of cult rivalry

    2) Stay restrictive but let the cults being more impactfull

    It will look like WotDG, so not unique, but the concept work.

    3) Get rid of restrictions and let the cult be really small improvement without drawback

    As KI have good chance to be rework to fit ASAW, cults have to keep the army special rule on all the cultists.
    The bonus can be here only for fluff, and be limit pointless (+1OS, +1Di conditionnal, +2March,...).
    It can be use to restrict some enchantement/artecfact to prevent OPness, it can be fine but not for more.
    As in the point 1) in this version all unit can rejoin a cult to represent the religious trend of DE society, as there is no drawback.

    4) Abandon representation of the cult in the ruleset

    A little sad, and the simpliest solution, we'll lose some interest in diversity and this will need some improvement in another side (expend themes like fleet/beast).
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • After total of 13 finished games on v2 .

    Rule : Cult's
    Prob : Feel's like im played WotDG (atleast the old version .. havent even read the new! )
    Rule : Fixed Cult's for some units e.g. Dark Raiders / Tower Guards
    Prob : limiting the List building options and some times forcing you to go to one way list
    How to Solve : remove the fixed cults and add them as optional upgrades tied to weapons Example :
    Dark Raiders Cult Of Cadaron only with xbows
    Tower Guards upgrade to Olaron the unit gain PLATE armor and Bodyguard (ofc remove bodyguard rule for non cult unit) on a military community where Tower Guards of Olaron suppose to be the protectors of our tower (or something like that -i dont khow the background :) ) i dont get why they are having the same armor as the rest of the army's special units .

    And ofc always talking with the correct points added

    Items : a) Academy Banner
    b) Elixir of Shadows
    Probs : a) .. well .. Rending Banner noithing more to say here
    b) Assassins only item .. why does it exist on the item list and taking a slot from another item that can be used by anyone in the army ? for limitations we have cults !!! dont add more to the items !!!
    How to Solve : a) either lower to point value to make it more attractive or (and since it doesnt exist anymore) make it perma +1 ap with increased point value ofc !
    b) Remove the item from our items and add a new one in it's place . Add Elixir of Shadows on Assassin Entry as upgrade.

    Unit : Assassin
    Prob : not an Assassin :D - serius question now .. when was the last time that all of you played an Assassin and it KILLED an enemy character (or something else) that WORTH the points that you spend on the assassin ??
    I mean . i tryed alot of different combos .. even with transcendence(charged up) / elixir / paired weapons / Bloody murder .. in a unit .. with banner of Gar Daecos .. with cult priest on foot(to regain my killer instinct) with banner of blood & Rending Banner .. yes i 1 shot a Dragon Vampire Lord on Steed.. but.. point cost invest with points taken ... not worth IMO
    How to Solve: easy way .. RENAME him coz he is not an Assassin ... ..
    or give him +1Att +4AP and MW2 vs characters permanent (CC AND Ranged)
    remove Special Equipment allowance
    change poisons upgrade to simple combat upgrades e.g.
    Nightshade : Can never be hit in close combat better than 5+ (can't be combined with Path Of Bloody Murder)
    SpiderVenom : Poison on 5+
    Blootroot : The Assassin and his unit gain poison on their shooting attacks (require Path Of silent Death)

    Unit : Blades Of Nabh
    Prob : Way to squicy - not doing the "glass cannon" as they should ... they die faster than they can kill !
    How to solve : give them some defence options for enemys ranged attacks so they can atleast get to the combat on a size that can actually do something point worth. (p.s. the "But you have the Altar for that" IT'S NOT a valid answer unless i can get the Altar for free and with range that can reach them no matter where they are on the board! and ofc the same goes for the ring of shadows) .
    e.g. : Unpredictable move : if the unit have made a marche move this turn it gain Hard Target untill the end of the next players turn ..

    Our current book it's on better place than it used to be ofc i haven't test everything on the book yet but on general im satisfied with what im using .
    The following 2 weeks i have planned 2 battles per day every day .. so i will test way more stuff and combos and then ill come back to add or remove some of the things that i have wrote .

    p.s. if anyone want me to test something in particular tell me and if it fits my way of playing ill add it to my list
    p.s.2. GIVE US DAMN March 9" on Chariots !
    p.s.3 as always sorry for my english and for my grammar mistakes :D
  • Unit
    Assassin's Not A Leader Rule

    What is the problem?
    The Assassin is seldom used and has too many competing entries in the book. As a consequence it doesn't provide unique new options in list building.

    Why is it a problem?
    As an elite army, Dread Elves seldom employ more than the minimum"staff" in characters. This "staff" is made up of: First caster, general and BSB. The Assassin cannot fulfill any of those roles and therefore is "extra". In addition as a "extra" combat character the assassin competes with elite infantry (already very strong in killing stuff) and additional Dread Princes and/or Captains which also can fight and have a better selection of mounts.

    How to solve it?
    Remove the "Not A Leader" rule from the Assassin (maybe add it to the silent death path). This way the Assassin might be the army's general, generating the fluff "Obsidian Throne Special Forces" army. This way DE players have more options in their character setup and can opt between a combat general with more Discipline and defense and one cheaper variant with less Discipline but a few extras.

    There is little to no downside to this, as any list currently employing both general and assassin doesn't change at all and the Assassin is not strong enough to create an imbalance towards Assassin spam without an Oracle (with an Oracle you can spam exactly the same number right now). The only thing to keep in check is, whether the Assassin would replace too many Dread Princes.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery:
  • Rule/unit/Item

    What is the problem? + Why is it a problem?

    Several problems

    1. RHB are useless (mechanically), especially after QtF lost always stand and shoot, but they never did much damage even with always S+S. They're strictly worse than throwing weapons, which is a huge disappointment in an elite army.

    2. RHB are unfluffy (in a simulation sense - they're a terrible naval sidearm. Not easy to stash in a belt/pants/sash/whatever, because as a bow they have this crossbow piece sticking out which is functional and can't be eliminated, nor can it be made compact without compromising the tension strength which makes it work as a bow at all. And sailors need weapons they can stash, because they need both hands free to do things like climb rigging. There's basically no functional purpose to a hand crossbow, and no reason to adopt their use when throwing knives would be at least as effective.)

    3. The unit also doesn't feel like a naval raider unit or like pirates.

    4. Poor choice over legionnaires, who make up for slightly less armor by having 1.5x the numbers at any given price - and that's with spears (who have the same number of attacks per file as pw corsairs, and better damage from AP). HW legionnaires are better at tanking because of parry, and are getting close to half the price.

    How to solve it?

    1. Pistols. They're useful and relevant. We know units carrying pistols can be balanced, even for elite troops. (See DH) And pistols are the pirate weapon. Corsairs are literally the only pirate unit in the game, this is a huge missed opportunity. Pistols also give a truly distinct role to Corsairs relative to legionnaires, which reduces direct competition for the same functional role.

    2. Ambush, not vanguard. Keep it tied to fleet commander, but vanguard doesn't really represent raiding. Ambush does. Force corsair units who use the ambush to be non-core choices. Whatever you need to do to 'balance' it. Also, BGT's short army description provided to the 2.0 TTs (which I cannot find now) included phrases like 'strike from the shadows', which is pretty much code for ambush.

    Not an ASAW problem - we don't have special deployment as a weakness, and a character tied limited ambush would still leave us worse at it than all the armies that have special deployment as a strength.

    Both of these together would help with all the fluff issues as well. They'd feel like pirates. Pistols are functional naval sidearms, and everyone pictures pirates as carrying pistols. Doesn't have to involve widespread firearm adoption for the whole army either - pirates historically picked up the use of whatever weapons they could get their hands on, based on effectiveness, style, or any other reason. They're the unit most likely to break with the rest of DE's military on weapon choices. DE doesn't even need to produce pistols, shot, or powder themselves - they can acquire them by raiding DH and EoS settlements, caravans, and ships. (It's not like they're going to do anything else with said items they acquire by raiding, and they will certainly acquire them as booty).

    Pistols on elves would also be super unique - help differentiate the elf factions more. And it would strongly signal DE's willingness to break with tradition in a way HbE and SE are not.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.



    Chariot Command HQ

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

  • Rule/unit/Item

    What is the problem?
    No role - other units perform their role better
    Weak equipment - handbows
    Vanguard/ Ambush

    Why is it a problem?
    Role: Spears beat them for anvil duty as well as combat power. Blades of nabh beat them in combat power. Repeater auxiliaries beat them in ranged. There is no role for them.
    Hanbows - currently weaker than throwing weapons
    Vanguard/Ambush -Special deployment options are frowned upon for core units in DE.

    How to solve it?
    Give corsairs a role that suits our armies strength's and weaknesses. We are supposed to be mobile/maneuverable and have close supporting units as a Strength! But we only have dark cloaks and dark raiders that fill that role.

    Give them Light troops - this fills the mobile/maneuverable strength as well as the 'rush up' theme.
    Throwing Weapons instead of Handbows - gives a range reduction which is in line with army weakness, quick to fire gives them good mobility, accurate works fine with cult of cadaron, and cult of cadaron giving +1 to hit at 4 inches is such a minor bonus for a strength 3 weapon.
    Obviously it synergizes well with some magic buffs but the catch is we gotta get real close and chose between casting it on corsairs to get some shooting, or cast it on a more effective combat block.

    NOTE: See Krakens hide suggestion for additional changes to make corsairs work.
  • Rule/unit/Item
    Kraken's hide

    What is the problem?
    On corsairs the extra armour isn't worth much in the current state of the game.

    Why is it a problem?
    Mostly for army strengths and weaknesses. Armour and special saves are not a strength, nor a weakness.

    How to solve it?
    Kraken's hide gives Hard Target and Distracting. This will help give some variation and roles to the army for corsairs and for the characters.
    It also goes well with the theme of pirates being lighter more mobile troops.
    With my above suggestion of Corsairs getting light troops, this change to krakens hide lets them get some more defense that skirmishers get but without having the open ranks of skirmish.

    Can also use this idea for the Lions Pelt in HBE.

  • Unit/Rule/Item

    Corsairs inc RHB.

    What is the problem?

    Corsairs currently have no role that can't be done better by the other core choices, which I believe is wasted design space. Using them as minimal scoring darts or Wizard bunkers is not a valid argument to keep them as they are. Sword-Elves do that job better anyway.

    RHB is even worse then it was before due to the nerf to QtF and is frankly a legacy of WFB. Needs radical re-think.

    Why is it a problem?

    Having units who's only purpose is "scoring dart or bunker" isn't what I would envision this project should be about. RHBs are even less attractive and even more overpriced. It takes up design space that could be better used to create a truly unique and exciting unit that has barely changed since WFB 8th.

    How can it be fixed?

    Move to special by swapping out Dancers into core. (This will mean mono-cult Yema has no special infantry but that can be solved by making cults optional on TG and RCs. Or just overhauling the cult mess but thats been covered extensively already.)

    Moving to special would make useful and pirate-ey rules like "ambush", "nets" or "pirate throwing weapons" more palatable to the brass.


    In the short term keep in core and change the character dependent vanguard into ambush. This would not clash with ASAW because special deployment isn't our weakness and would still be dependent on a character. This would also make fleet comd more attractive outside just an overpriced armour bonus.

  • Unit/Rule/Item
    All "army definining" themes of the Dread Elves book: Beast Master & Menagier, Fleet Commaner & Naval Raider Theme, all Cults and cultist theme.

    What is the problem?
    There are too many of them, making a complete army book without any cohesion. Many supposed themes are basically one entry and all themes combat for relevance in the book.

    Why is it a problem?
    Instead of having clear and grockable themes that resonate with the players, i.e. "I am fielding a Beast Master list today", we have a mixed bag of stuff without any clear theme, neither thematical nor rules-wise. The different parts do not create synergies with each other, neither by combination nor by amassing them. Instead there are singular entries in every army (one unit of Nabh, one unit of Cadaron, one unit of Yema, one Fleet Commander on a Pegasus (who does nothing for the list but providing a little more armour)). In such lists there is no identity or theme at all. "Cadaron" is not a Cadaron cultist anymore, but a unit which traded KI for +1 to hit on short range. It has zero(!) upside to have Cult rules stacked on the unit.

    In short: Too many things going on, nothing is really done well.

    How can it be fixed?
    Drastically reduce the number of themes the army tries to cater to. Do not implement six(!) theme-related things, if necessary mash them together (e.g. Cadaron could merge with Beast Master). Decide on a much lower number (I guess two or three). Make them prominent and all equally viable (i.e. mixed is equally viable as theme-focused).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery:
  • Unit/Rule/Item
    Lack of real Cult Synergy

    What is the problem?
    There is no value of having a cult aligned character with cultist units, and the more cult units you take, the lower the benefit of having a cult general.

    Why is it a problem?
    It lacks fluff, immersion and fun. If I want to bring a Nabh list for example, it makes sense I would have lots of Blades of Nabh. But to get the most benefit from my Cultist General, I should bring none, and then all the other core options become Nabh. Why do my Nabh units not benefit from having Nabh general/characters? Given that Nabh is kind of wasted on our high OS characters (without GW), it makes more sense to have a Fleet Commander or non-cult character joining Blades or DJs. Only Yema really require the character to be aligned, but then it's just so you don't lose the benefit of the cult (+1M & strider), the unit doesn't gain anything itself.

    How can it be fixed?
    There should be some sort of benefit to cult units if there is a cult general or a cult character in the unit or in the list. It doesn't have to be a big one: +1 combat res for example would be something that isn't OP but gives something to a unit that should benefit from having their own leaders in their midst.
  • Unit/Rule/Item
    Bloated cult system and other "themes" (beast and fleet).

    What is the problem?
    A lot of these "themes" are in the book because of the old system it is based on.
    The different themes seem to not add something to a coherent "army" and seem not to be based on any logical approach. A little bit of this, and of this. And on top the bloat of 4 different cults.

    Why is it a problem?
    All those single things...4 cults, fleet and beast theme don´t fit together in a proper way. It doesn´t make any sense to ai at using only one of these themes in an army list, and when you start mixing them together it just doesn´t feel a lot like a coherent army.

    How can it be fixed?
    First step...take out the bloated cults, make some dedicated CULT (one single CULT, no matter where the units come from) units that are limited in normal list, but when fielded as a cult army the normal units are limited instead. (either by numbers of allowed units or changed percentage)
    So 2 main themes for the army....Regular army and CULT army, and of course there should be enough units in regular army to make it viable without cult units.
    So there are fleet and beast left. Either these are upgrades for a regular army changing the percent limits (Beast general= more allowed monsters), while a fleet general allows corsairs to be core instead of special (with changes to the unit of course when they go to special, but other limits on monster and cavalry units (not the things that are so common on ships).

    It would help a lot to know a bit more about background and fluff of the whole DE society. I think most of us think too much in the ways old DE background was presented in the dead game.
  • Rule/unit/Item
    Pendant of Disdain

    What is the problem?
    Too many points at 75
    OR the strength 5 restriction is too high.

    Why is it a problem?
    Because only against Strength 5 to get a 4+ aegis is too situational for an artifact that is 75pts. Talisman of Shielding for a 5+ aegis all the time at 50pts is the better choice. There is just too much strength 3 and 4 things that this item does nothing against.

    How to solve it?
    Reduce the item to 50points. Even at a reasonable 60points I feel it would be too much.
    OR reduce the strength 5 restriction to strength 4.

    Edit: I just want to explain that Strength 4 would really be the best solution because it works against alot of the magic missiles. But there are still alot of magic missiles where it doesn't work against. All the strength 3 ones, the ones without strength. Alchemy for example: quicksilver lash still gets through. But Molten copper will not, ....and keep in mind that even on molten copper it is till just a 4+ save, so it is still worth casting against a Manticore 2+ Armour save guy.
    And there are loads of Aim shooting that is strenght 3. In fact it adds some usefullness to those strength 3 shots instead of everyone complaining that strength 3 bows do nothing.

    Overall in a big game like this, these little niche situations can count for alot in terms of situational usefulness.
    I would even recommend a couple other armies get this type of strength 4 trigger for some defenses - could be aegis, could be resilience, etc...

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