Dread Elves: ASAW Discussion

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • Dread Elves: ASAW Discussion

    Dread Elf Army Strength And Weaknesses

    This thread is for the discussion of the DE ASAW and how/whether/if
    1. our army book entries fit those
    2. our army book entries could be changed to better fit those
    3. the ASAW actually match the army

    The Community Poll
    There are two distinct sets of DE ASAW. The initial community poll and the version extracted by the Army Design Team from the poll and the ongoing design discussions. The community poll version is therefore outdated, but I include it here for completeness:

    Top 6 Strengths
    (ordered by poll result, with poll result in square brackets)
    • [73] Combat (1st turn)
    • [64] Mobility (speed)
    • [62] Mobility (maneuver)
    • [47] Ranged (small)
    • [32] Leadership (independent)

    (same logic)
    • [-94] Defense (toughness)
    • [-79] Defense (numbers)
    • [-70] Ranged (heavy)
    • [-55] Combat (continous)
    • [-53] Defense (armour)
    • [-46] Ranged (medium)

    The Updated DE ASAW by the ADT
    This data is taken from the T9A Scroll Issue #3:

    • Support (characters)
    • Mobility (maneuver & speed)
    • Leadership (bubble)
    • Combat (1st turn)
    • Ranged (maneuverable, small)
    • Magic (offensive)
    Soft Weaknesses
    • Defense (toughness)
    • Defense (special saves)
    • Magic (defensive)
    • Ranged (medium)
    Hard Weaknesses
    • Defense (numbers)
    • Ranged (long range)

    Changes between Community Poll and ADT Version
    Obviously there were some changes not only in content, but also in the categories. The initial poll e.g. did not have Magic (offensive) or Magic(defensive) as categories. Neither did it have a distinction on ranged attacks regarding their range. I think these category changes are very good, since the original poll options often made no sense or the game never actually made a strength in there really possible. Also some categories were much, much, much more valuable than others (just compare any combat strength, affecting every CC unit in the book, with any magic attribute which affects one or two casters and only allows access to a certain set of paths).

    1. Support (characters): This is the major change for me. Firstly the category was not present in the original poll (it had support on buff wagons, hex wagons, intrinsic and "friendlies"). I was surprised to see the wording there, highlighting the possibility of unit upgrades tied to characters and character:unit synergy. Unless you count the ridiculously bad Fleet Commander as part of that "strength", we don't have that at all in our book. So I expect the most changes here, as soon as our book is re-designed.
    2. Leadership: Change from independent to bubble.
    3. Mobility: Apparently the two separate options maneuverability and speed have been merged into one.
    4. Ranged: The small fire strength is still there, but it is now tied to be on close range as well. On the plus side the comments indicate, that this shooting is supposed to be maneuverable as well.
    5. Magic: While we had slightly upside votes on small spells, big spells and augment/hex spells throughout the field, the new categories now put our strength in casting spells and harming the opponent and the weakness in magical defense and defensive spells.
    6. Defenses: The defenses have somewhat been thrown around. Numbers is the primary hard weakness, while armour does not appear on our weaknesses anymore. Toughness is relegated to soft weakness, I guess in order to allow the Raptors to remain Res 4.
    7. Combat (continuous) is not a weakness at all. This is very fitting for the DE as we generally don't lose damage capacity throughout the turns. The initial poll was especially badly worded, as it contained the term 'grinding' which also implies the ability to shrug off CC damage, and therefore caused many voters to downvote it for us.
    8. Ranged (long range): Another new category. It clearly shows, that we should not be able to do gunlines. Obviously the ADT doesn't care about having high strength shooting, but more on artillery hanging back and shooting the opponent from a safe position.
    On preferred playstyles, nothing really changed. The playstyles of combined arms with clear focus on aggressive infantry play is still very much focused. Complimented by an assortment of monsters, but not venturing too far into Monster Mash playstyles.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • @DarkSky when writing down strengths and weaknesses it would be beneficial to also put in bracket or somewhere where the army falls on the scale for that particular category :)

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • @Giladis

    I would surely like to do that, but I do not have the data for that. The old community polls are not up-to-date anymore and some categories are obviously changed. The Ninth Scroll did not specify the new categories completely, neither did it compare how good that strengths are in comparison to other armies, aside from general "they are among the best for XYZ" and so on.

    Is this data available somewhere?
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • I have it :)

    Btw the voting categories are still there internally but how we express the conclusions is somewhat different. The "missing" part of the magic equation comes from an internal poll conducted among the ABC, BLT and RT staff a few months prior to the big community poll.

    In addition a put the correct numbers :)

    Top 6 Strengths
    (ordered by poll result, with poll result in square brackets)
    • [74] Combat (1st turn) 2nd
    • [66] Mobility (speed) 2nd
    • [62] Mobility (maneuver) 2nd
    • [47] Ranged (small) shared 4th
    • [32] Leadership (independent) 5th

    (same logic)
    • [-93] Defense (toughness) 2nd
    • [-79] Defense (numbers) 3rd
    • [-69] Ranged (heavy) 6th
    • [-57] Combat (continous) 2nd
    • [-54] Defense (armour) 7th
    • [-47] Ranged (medium) 7th

    edit: in addition to that Offensive Magic has a score of 52 (3rd) while Defensive -8 (shared 3rd from the back)

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • To further frame the discussion, it may be of interest to review the ASAW-guidelines (from 2017 - Scroll Issue #3) for the other elven factions as well:

    Edit: "Please keep in mind that these are very rough guides yet, and have mostly been written to help focus theDread Elf S/W guidelines, by knowing what the other 2 Elven Forces focus on. This means that both theseguidelines are still very open to change and are less in depth."

    Highborn Elves

    "Some units (mostly core and characters) are universal multi-purpose units. Otherunits are highly specialized, very good at one specific task, but lacking at all otherthings. They have rocks, papers and scissors, but need to match them correctly towin. A superior general (which the Highborn Elves believe themselves to be) will beable to get the right unit into the right place, and thus victory will be easy."

    • leadership bubble
    • LD independence
    • speed
    • medium arms fire
    • small arms fire
    • offensive magic (ability to cast spells)
    • defensive magic (ability to stop spells)
    • strength in numbers
    • toughness
    • ignore morale
    • special deployment
    • heavy arms fire
    • support wagons/characters

    Sylvan Elves

    "Guerrilla warfare, hit and run, using terrain and careful placement of their units.The name of the game is splitting up the enemy force and ganging up on weakerparts to achieve victory!"

    • combat grinding*
    • combat first turn damage*
    • avoiding hits
    • special deployment
    • manoeuvrability
    • speed
    • manoeuvrable shooting-
    • small arms fire
    • armor
    • strength in numbers
    • medium arms fire
    • heavy arms fire
    • ranged damage spells, small spells
    • ranged damage spells, big spells*

    *) Combat units split into two main camps:
    - Elves: No talent for combat grinding, strong damage output in first turn
    - Trees: Good grind (mainly due to staying power), nothing extra first turn

    “In very general terms, Dread Elves will be the combat focused elf army. Sylvan Elves will be avoidance/guerrilla/hit-and-run. Highborn Elves will be mixed arms.”

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

  • DarkSky wrote:

    Defenses: The defenses have somewhat been thrown around. Numbers is the primary hard weakness, while armour does not appear on our weaknesses anymore. Toughness is relegated to soft weakness, I guess in order to allow the Raptors to remain Res 4.
    I think that Special Saves could be DE alternative for defense.
    2 magic items with Aegis, access to both Occultism & Cosmology (so spells like Hand of Glory, Unity in Divergence) , Divine Altar & its blessing, units with built-in form of Aegis & Regeneration (Assassin, Dancers, Medusa, Acolytes, Hydra)

    Looking at HBE forum I think that they may want to take Armour as their Strenght (so e.g. can keep heavy cav in core) and if they DE will not be able to do the same.
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • So, imo the special saves weakness has to go. The book simply isn't workable without special saves, and all design direction so far has added more special saves, not reduced them. (DE gained 2 new special saves in 2.0: medusa and an item). Clearly no one's vision of the book actually involves a special saves weakness.

    I'd add a weakness in heavy arms fire, since we're already weak, with our heavy arms being limited to two pieces, both at the lower end of Heavy Arms strength (6,7), and the higher strength among the shortest ranged heavy weapons in the game. (And Dread Reaper is likely to get shorter in the FAB), and that's assuming nothing else changes.

    I'd also note that DE arguably don't have a speed strength at present. We're probably sitting in 6th or 7th on army speed. And some of the armies that are clearly faster than us don't even have a speed strength. Raptors being a pitiful advance 7 is not helping here - slowest heavy cavalry in the game.

    We also don't really have a small arms strength in practice, but that's a general problem with how ranged weapon strengths are implemented and understood by RT. That's not going to get better when the RXB range gets cut.

    fwiw: the strength is Support (Characters/Wagons) - they're not separate things, but one strength.
    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