Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 657.

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

  • Not sure why @berti gets so much flack, even when making perfectly reasonable comments. I'm used to seeing it on the HE sub-forum, but they've been (at least somewhat justifiably, IMO) touchy about anyone suggesting anything HE have is even remotely good in external balance terms. Let's not have the same here please. Just because the army someone plays a different army, even as their main army, doesn't mean they have an agenda against Elves. Other people can have valid input about SE, even if th…

  • Quote from Giladis: “Imagine an elf lives in his house, the house is nice and when the conditions are right a wild cat sometimes comes inside causing bedlam, but just as quickly leaves. Then one day there is a vicious storm and the cat is thrown by the wind through your window net into your living room. The cat is bewildered, wet and cold so it finds one of your old socks and turns it into an extra coat to avoid hypothermia. Once the storm is over the cat wants to leave but it no longer can as t…

  • Quote from DanT: “Ok, there seems to be a clear pattern here. Now the $1000000000000 dollar question. How should ranged damage factor into this global picture about picking the enemy apart vs them staying together? (Hidden Content) ” Not that different from how it works now. SE should tend to do well in shooting duels, thanks to manipulation of to-hit penalties in their favour, but should not have the raw firepower to simply sit back and gun down an approaching army. That makes it harder for ene…

  • Quote from DanT: “Interesting. So it seems whilst there is some support for the "tree anvil and elf shooting" amongst the early responses, there is also a strong contingent of something like "run around quickly, make the enemy try to run in every direction and then pounce on isolated parts". One further flavour question: What should be the circumstances under which SE lose? (From a flavour/big picture perspective still; e.g. for EoS my answer would be something like "when the battleline gets dis…

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “The reason it's a RPS issue is that even if you take a 50-50 split between elves and forest spirits, the elven part still evaporates against magic, leaving you with half an army, and the slow, easily outmaneuvered half at that. ” hmm, thats a problem most of the elves face. I'm curious to see how RT will fix it....judging from the ID book it looks like they didn't even consider the RPS matchup at all. ” Not specifically related to the ID book, …

  • Quote from Peacemaker: “If a sylvan player chooses to only take the elf parts then he's choosing to go for RPS. I know the community is kinda split about Sylvan Elvs or Sylvan trees but I think T9A is going to go in the direction of combined lists for balance. Their goal won't be Elf list and Tree list equally viable. They are looking for army books to be unique, and with 2 other elf books, the Sylvan Elf part won't be designed for stand alone. ” The reason it's a RPS issue is that even if you t…

  • @Alexwellace I did read some of the as-yet-unreleased fluff about Forest Spirits back during the initial redesign for the 2.0 beta, but honestly I don't remember it clearly enough to be much help here. Can we narrow the question down a bit? I know who to ask, but we need a clear, concise question (or clearer questions), not an open-ended question. So do you want to know how SE and FS forged their alliance? How they live together? How they see their respective roles in their joint society?

  • Regarding bow range, the real limiting factor to bow range in a forest is not the trees being too close together, it's that the canopy prevents high arcing shots. In an open field, you can launch arrows high into the air to fall on the enemy. Doing that in a forest results in lots of arrows getting stuck in the canopy or unlucky passing squirrels! That means that shooting within a forest requires a flatter trajectory, which doesn't give us much range. A powerful bow will tend to have a longer ra…

  • @Stygian I think you do have a point about the book being layers of tweaks and bandaids over a legacy design from a different game with different expectations. I don't think we can move away from the concept of SE being the more evasive, sneaky, stealthy elves, but perhaps we can change what that means in practise. For example, SE could be very maneuverable in the first few turns of the game, but not in the later turns. This would make SE masters of redeploying and outmaneuvering the enemy early…

  • I don't think forcing restrictions on the number of fast units is a solution. Ensuring that those faster units have drawbacks is a much better solution. For example, light troops have some very obvious drawbacks, most notably that they can't negate steadfast. Combined with the tendency for light troops to be relatively fragile, there is no problem. They can't negate steadfast to break you on the charge, and they tend to lose the grind badly. Heavy cavalry don't have those drawbacks, but they don…

  • I'm not sure this can be "solved" by the army books, at least not without horrific special rules bloat, but the scale of the issue can be reduced, and perhaps more importantly, we can potentially ensure that new books don't make the problem worse. I'd certainly encourage everyone to take @DanTs advice and leave feedback relating to this in the appropriate ID feedback thread. I certainly will be doing so once I've had time to really look at it properly.

  • @DanT Yet again you make me wish I could "like" a post more than once.

  • Quote from DanT: “Don't get me wrong, I know people who actively want skirmish/monster armies in t9a, nothing is ever so simple ” This is of course true. Plenty of players prefer the more skirmish style play, and frankly I doubt anyone knows which style is preferred by the majority. It's easy to say "Most players prefer x" but the truth is we don't know what the majority prefer, only what the players we know prefer. In my experience, over nearly 25 years of WHFB and T9A, most of the people in my…

  • I have to agree with the sentiment that requiring single models to wheel etc would go a long way to making infantry more effective at being something more than just scorers and steadfast tarpits. Other units only get that kind of mobility at a cost, and rarely have either the hitting power or durability of many single models, yet single models get the mobility advantages on top of their existing advantages, without any additional drawbacks. There are some single models which don't have the hitti…

  • Quote from Ghiznuk: “@CariadocThorne I agree with you, but again, I believe half of the info you are asking has not been defined by the BGT yet Also, a background compendium and an atlas are scheduled, but can't be released as long as not all factions have been covered to some extent See for example, last year we had a discussion on whether to release all the fluff from the Ninth Scroll as a general supplement. But I and others voiced concern that we could not release such a supplement as long a…

  • I love the background which has been released so far. However, I think that the project has taken too narrow an approach to how the background is released. The stories we've seen so far ar great, and there are distinct advantages to the majority of the stories being written from the perspective of human narrators, but I would like to see a smaller number of accounts from other perspectives. In addition to this, I think we need some direct background. We need to recognise that a lot of people in …

  • That is one of the advantages of having fluff presented through in-world sources, they have their own perspectives and biases. So it's easy to present a story of a dark force of purposeless evil, killing and enslaving for no reason, because the guy telling the story doesn't know or understand the motivations of the enemy. That doesn't mean his story is the whole truth. Another story from a different perspective might explain exactly why it's not "purposeless evil" at all, but for those who want …

  • Quote from Firthunands91: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “It depends, in some ways, the army is hugely diverse, however, it is also very limited in a couple of ways. In particular the army has a distinct lack of S6 or higher. We have no high strength, high AP, multiwound warmachines, no S4 greatweapon/lance elites etc. Our only access to S6+ comes from characters, Treefathers and dragon mounts. ” Has a lack of Str6 that's true, but also have 3 models with Crush Attacks. Then I don't agree at all wi…

  • Quote from Firthunands91: “I don't see SE having limited toolbox at all, they probably have one of the most diverse books out there? ” It depends, in some ways, the army is hugely diverse, however, it is also very limited in a couple of ways. In particular the army has a distinct lack of S6 or higher. We have no high strength, high AP, multiwound warmachines, no S4 greatweapon/lance elites etc. Our only access to S6+ comes from characters, Treefathers and dragon mounts.

  • Quote from nantuko: “Quote from CariadocThorne: “Quote from Cam: “SE complaining about bad matches against magic missiles tend to forget in some games they can’t be caught and it’s equally frustrating the other way round. ” I want to see RPS with SE reduced to the point that neither player ever feels that level of frustration due to one list hard-countering the other. That means keeping careful control of SE shooty avoidance, AND ensuring that SE have counterplay to magic missiles. ” question: i…