Pinned HE General and News - 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!

  • just merge reavers with lancers:
    cheap
    4+ armor
    light lance
    bow
    AP1
    can select between elain or highborn:
    -highborn => shields, scoring, counts as +1 rank, min size 10,
    -elain => Feigned Flight, Light Troops, Vanguard, max size 10

    done, and we can forget about this topic :)

    jaith1 wrote:

    @cptcosmic
    If you read my post carefully, then you should be able to understand that I am NOT saying that Lancer Deathstars are currently good or a problem.

    They are mentioned as something that should be avoided. It is one of my least favorite things about our 8th Edition book. Cav deathstars might be my least favorite thing I have ever played or faced ever. Thankfully i have not played a game like this in t9A (yet).
    it really does not matter what the intention was when the message does not deliver ;)

    FIER does not really change the ability to make a bus to carry characters, if lancers with FIER can make a bus then lancers without could aswell.

    gist ist, there are myriads of reasons why lancer bus with loads of characters does not work for HBE, FIER wont change anything about it.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by cptcosmic ().

  • @cptcosmic
    I see what you mean now. I failed to mention I was thinking several steps down the road where we have a scenario where FiER Lancer buses are still not working, and then more buffs came along that could potentially make something like lancer death Stars viable.
    In my make-believe scenario, these buffs would look like War Banner of Ryma gets buffed back to +1S +1AP, Commanders getting even cheaper, and QCav honor getting buffed somehow all while Lancers are 200+30ppm with FiER.

    Anyways I agree with you.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • mathair wrote:

    cptcosmic wrote:

    -highborn => shields, scoring, counts as +1 rank, min size 10,
    and forget about them? 10+ is a boing or waste of points.
    they are already waste of points :D

    what are you going to do with less than 10 lancers? they cant disrupt and are not worth redirecting at all because they rubberband and die. they have no role to in the HBE army.

    10-15 cheap ones on the other hand have multiple uses.
  • If 12 lancers are cheap enough, they will see play and be useful to disrupt ranks. To be honest, no FIER needed (but it would be fitting to their "disciplied riding skills" and nice to have) if their price is right.

    But they shuold be really cheap, like 400-something for 12 with musician, imho.

    Then KoR can zone harder stuff like monsters and HL can try to disrupt flanks (won't be easy as HE lack combat threats and with HL you probably miss one unit that can actually fight a bit... on the other hand superior movement might help).
  • What @teclis2000 said. Lancers can work to disrupt ranks right now. They just need to (majorly) drop in price. A unit of 10 should cost the same (more or less) as a unit of Knights of Ryma for their current incarnation. At about 380 to 450 for a unit of 12 to 15, then you've got a fairly decent flanking unit that can help you fight. The problem right now is that it's just not worth it for the price (after all, we're talking about almost a 200 point difference in price). We could push this further where Knights of Ryma zone "hard" units like heavy cavalry, chariots, and monsters, while Lancers zone "softer" infantry. Though TBH, I don't see this being easy to do.

    @arwaker what I said was that units should not have the same role and the same mechanics. A unit needs to be mechanically distinct if it overlaps a role. You can't have two units with the same role AND mechanics, no? Otherwise, what's the point of having 2 of them? Also, I think it's a bad idea to have two units so similar. Balancing algorithm will EVENTUALLY get them to the right spot. . . but it's going to take a LONG time. :\

    @jaith1, bear in mind "defensive elves" doesn't mean "can only have defensive rules". Simply that, in general, the army will be more of a "Tank, then Spank" approach rather than "incoherent screeching as blood and limbs fly everywhere". In a similar fashion, I would be VERY surprised if DE Raptor Knights and Chariots lose armor or Res in exchange for boosting their offensive power.

    PS. I'd say Warriors and Chosen are somewhat different. Chosen are an infantry hammer almost exclusively. Warriors are "Anvil" and provide ranks, but can be "tricked out" into being a half decent hammer.
  • There are myriads of units which very similar in mechanics, indicating major role overlaps. This is not a major problem to have in design. Look at mentioned KoE cavalry or VS infantry. Rhymas and Lancers are not even close to be the two most similar units within one army.

    Having redundant units for same or similar role will make them both cheaper and make more players wanting to have this specific role in their army. Redundant units are a method to highlight a focus of the army, because of their cheap price, many players will include them. It is also background related.

    I think HE could be an army with a strength in heavy cavalry, therefore I would not mind having two units with similar purpose in this field.
  • @sparkytrypod But I think you still might be missing the point. Your example of phalanx is good but that’s a realistic example. Right now, units don’t count as having ranks in a forest, in an attempt to mimic your example in one sense (with specific purposeful exceptions of course).

    the game should try to implement real life mechanics, not create new mechanics that can’t be translated or explained in a real life scenarios.

    Another annoying one is deploying frenzy units backwards to avoid testing for frenzy charges.
    That would never happen in real life. If there were such a group of risky impetuous soldiers in real what would happen? Worst case scenario, albeit still a dumb one I think, blindfold them? Ok at least that’s more believable than having your men face backwards...
  • @arwaker, neither of those examples are from a LAB book. Can you give an example from Warriors or Daemons like that? Where a unit is literally just “same unit with better stats”?

    @sparkytrypod

    There’s “adapting”, and there’s “face away from enemy soldiers because I don’t want you to risk charging them”. That level of non-sensical is what we are talking about.
  • cptcosmic wrote:

    just merge reavers with lancers:
    cheap
    4+ armor
    light lance
    bow
    AP1
    can select between elain or highborn:
    -highborn => shields, scoring, counts as +1 rank, min size 10,
    -elain => Feigned Flight, Light Troops, Vanguard, max size 10

    done, and we can forget about this topic :)

    jaith1 wrote:

    @cptcosmic
    If you read my post carefully, then you should be able to understand that I am NOT saying that Lancer Deathstars are currently good or a problem.

    They are mentioned as something that should be avoided. It is one of my least favorite things about our 8th Edition book. Cav deathstars might be my least favorite thing I have ever played or faced ever. Thankfully i have not played a game like this in t9A (yet).
    it really does not matter what the intention was when the message does not deliver ;)
    FIER does not really change the ability to make a bus to carry characters, if lancers with FIER can make a bus then lancers without could aswell.

    gist ist, there are myriads of reasons why lancer bus with loads of characters does not work for HBE, FIER wont change anything about it.
    I like the idea of a mixed unit of say 5 lancers in the front rank and 5 Elain Reavers in the 2nd rank. all the unit has bows but only the Lancers have lances heavy armor and shields, but horses do not have barding so the front rank has a 3+ armor while the rear has 5+ armor. This was a common formation of the Byzantine Thematic Cavalry unit, the core of the mounted units in the late Eastern Roman Empire.
    Failure is not an option.
  • @Marcos24 @Aenarion43

    Sorry, I am speaking about silver helms and Reaver's only and whether it is gamey, lame or cheesy to use them in non standard formations. (Or at least that is what I want to focus on, I might have strayed a bit on previous posts)
    It is where I jumped into the conversation.
    These units are rarely if ever deployed backwards.

    To reference your point @Marcos24tegarding the game mimicking real life, do you find it odd that both cavalry and infantry units have the same options for ranks, ie 5 & 8?

    I run my lancers in a 3x3 block, is this lame, gamey or cheesy?

    Il say yes, the facing backwards frenzy thing is odd alright.
    death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain

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

  • @sparkytrypod I understand, and not really and probably because I’m used to small units of KoE knights doing that, though aesthetically i prefer a wider front rank. But in any case, I’m only giving you those examples to help understand what we view as cheesy/gamey etc when we say that, which can be subjective so obviously vary per person. But anyway, if someone says that’s how they feel about then at least you understand now. Doesn’t mean they’re right or that you have to agree, just helps communication
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    jaith1 wrote:



    A unit of 25 Flamewardens and 45 Spears (both roughly 700 points with FC + Banner) have effectively 50 v 45 wounds, while the Flame wardens have 15 S4 AP1 attacks vs 20 S3 AP1 attacks.


    One is a more cost effective version of the other. Which is which depends on what enemy you are facing. Flame Wardens will do better against monsters and elite units with low numbers of attacks. Spears are better against horde style units that deal tons of weak attacks, as these create the second worst nightmare of Flame Wardens: making them roll lots of saves. Flame Wardens are the more elite version. They are not necessarily more cost effective.

    To say spears are better than FW against tons of weak attacks is simply incorrect. Both are R3 with 2 armor. The 4+ aegis save of FW can literally go both ways. To say this aegis save is better utilized against monsters and elite units is technically correct, but you cannot say that spears are better than FW against weak attacks.

    Aenarion43 wrote:



    @jaith1, bear in mind "defensive elves" doesn't mean "can only have defensive rules". Simply that, in general, the army will be more of a "Tank, then Spank" approach rather than "incoherent screeching as blood and limbs fly everywhere". In a similar fashion, I would be VERY surprised if DE Raptor Knights and Chariots lose armor or Res in exchange for boosting their offensive power.

    PS. I'd say Warriors and Chosen are somewhat different. Chosen are an infantry hammer almost exclusively. Warriors are "Anvil" and provide ranks, but can be "tricked out" into being a half decent hammer.
    ''defensive elves" i say in sarcastic jest. I truly believe HBE are about controlled balance between aggression and defensiveness (50/50).

    In regards to Chosen vs Warriors... they have the same S/AP attacks available. 10 Chosen have 20 wounds and 30 attacks. 20 Warriors have 20 wounds and 15 attacks in 5x4... but a unit of 24 warriors in 8x3 have 36 attacks! Okay lets assume they are fighting a 100mm wide unit the 8x3 warriors still have 24 attacks at the same strength and armor penetration. So my argument here is that the warriors have the option to be more than just a half decent hammer, they literally have ~80% the kill power of Chosen.

    Again, I am not sure how this is different from giving Lancers (+1 A) if their extra ppm are cheaper than rymas so you are still incentivized to take lancers in larger numbers. Devastating Charge (+1 A) gives Lancers about ~85% of the kill power of Ryma's when just one of OS5/S6/AP3 come in to play, 70% when two come into play, and 58% when all three come into play. And of course Lancers have 100% the kill power of Ryma's against OS4/R3/Armor 2 enemies.

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    @arwaker, neither of those examples are from a LAB book. Can you give an example from Warriors or Daemons like that? Where a unit is literally just “same unit with better stats”?
    Aside from the Chosen and Warriors above, I think arguments can be made between Feldraks/Chosen Knights/Warrior Knights, but I really don't want to go there.

    I think it to use Demons as an example is also a bit of an unfair, just on how the army is designed. But there is certainly role overlap... you have a choice between shooty/killy/tough+grindy/speedy standard infantry in core. And then you just have bigger versions of shooty/killy/tough+grindy/speedy in special, whether that bigger form is cavalry or monstrous or flying or chariot or any mixture of these... But specifically, how about we compare Imps and Eidolons?
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • Never said anything about "Better". Cost efficiency and eliteness (strict superiority on a model by model basis) are two different things. Spears are more cost efficient because they don't care near as much about losing models. With a higher number of attacks, they have a better chance of grinding through tarpits/hordes in time to make a difference as well as having enough models to make a difference at the end. It's not that spears are BETTER on a per model basis. It's that they have tasks at which they can potentially be a more cost efficient choice than flame wardens. It's not about which one is better. It's about what gets the most bang for your buck.

    Regarding Chosen vs. Warriors, you kind of make my point for me. ;) Warriors are better as an anvil/rank provider. Chosen work better as a hammer. However, each one can potentially do the other's job. They just aren't as good at the job as the ideal selection. The point, again, comes down to cost efficiency. The fact that each can do the other job somewhat effectively doesn't change the fact that each entry is better at a specific task.

    The point isn't that there can't be a ROLE overlap. It's that if you overlap ROLES, the mechanics of the unit have to be different. If you overlap the MECHANICS of the unit, the roles should differ. Making units with the same roles and mechanics is: both lazy design and difficult to balance (VERY difficult).

    Edited to add: This doesn't mean that the "add Devastating Charge +1A" is not necessarily the correct idea. Simply that other options should be appropriately explored because of the potential concerns with simply adding +1A. There's also, as was mentioned, the potential balancing issues associated between KoR and Lancers. We shouldn't limit ourselves during LAB.
  • Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

    cptcosmic wrote:

    I like the idea of a mixed unit of say 5 lancers in the front rank and 5 Elain Reavers in the 2nd rank. all the unit has bows but only the Lancers have lances heavy armor and shields, but horses do not have barding so the front rank has a 3+ armor while the rear has 5+ armor. This was a common formation of the Byzantine Thematic Cavalry unit, the core of the mounted units in the late Eastern Roman Empire.

    Bizantium cathafrakts (or bukilarii) had even more heavy armour then western knights;). I don't like the idea of 3+ armour at all!!!
  • When comparing Flame Wardens and Citizen Spears, their roles might overlap, but I clearly see different strengths. Flame Wardens are with their ++ far better in fighting killy opponents and far better when attacking Res5 targets. Spears are far better when fighting opposing infantry, not because of their attacks, but because of their more ranks. Wardens might need three turns to grind down a Gobin unit, while Spears can break them already after two turns. Role overlap? Sure, but with different focus.

    Same for Rhymas and Lancers. They have overlap in the general role of being heavy cavalry, but they are also different. Rhymas are clearly the better damage dealers per point. But Lancers are cheaper, making them more resilient against losses and more able to disrupt ranks. They are also better at hosting a character because you lose less attacking power when pushing a model in the back rank.
    When adding some kind of attack buff to the Lancers (this +1A suggestion for example), their roles will overlap MORE. I don't think this is the right way to go.

    At the moment the point balance between Rhymas and Lancers might not have been reached, but that is not a situation lasting forever. With current rules and at some day correct prices, they will both see sufficient competitive games. I don't see a high necessity to change their rules for LAB, because I think their rules are already fine for background and distinct enough.

    I see other things in HE book that need clearly rules changes in LAB, but the two heavy cavalry units are among those who have the lowest need for changes. Imho.
  • @arwaker
    If we keep them at their same rules, then we will basically have a situation where one unit of 10 lancers will have to be the same price as one unit of 5 Ryma's.

    Throughout the history of High Elves, one heavy cavalry choice has always dominated the other. In 6th edition, where they had nearly the same fighting stats, core Silver Helms were the natural choice. Later on, Dragon Princes became dominant when they recieved 2A. But they have never been distinguished with the elite version having an extra point of S/AP. I truly truly believe that the extra point of S/AP/OS/DS/Di + fireborn while having the same volume attacks is the balancing point between them. There is no other heavy cavalry that is outclassed by their elite counter part as badly (unless we count SE options as heavy cav).

    Also, because this is a tabletop game with miniatures, once we go down this road it is likely hard to go back (explain to a guy after he has painted 40 lancers that all of a sudden he only needs 20 of them). Right now lancers are still priced around the point where Devastating Charge (+1A) can be justified.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • From my gut feeling 10 Lancers are more versatile and effective than 5 Rhymas. This is certainly just an assumption, but if those were costed similar, I think Rhymas will not see enough games. I think about 8-9 Lancers costing as much as 5 Rhymas could be the sweet spot.

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