Dread Elves LAB Design guidelines Feedback thread

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!

  • fjugin wrote:

    What we are looking for here is no so much opinions on what is speculated to work in a competitive setting. Let's assume our armybook designers will be able to implement things in a competitive way (afterall, this is to a large degree down to points, which is easy to fine-tune and has nothing to do with guidelines).

    For example, assume that short-ranged shooting is made to be effective under the limits given in guidelines (e.g. no pure avoidance lists, shooting has a support role and is not not the main damage dealer, and so on). Assume that fragile elite units with only heavy armour can be made to be competitive. We have short-ranged shooty units that are usable in the game currently. And we have combat units with 5+ armour and res3 that are usable as well. No reason we should not be able to achieve this with DE.

    Under such assumptions; do you think the guidelines describe DE as an army you as DE players can identify with? Does it sounds fun to use?


    It may also be relevant to consider the statement regarding eliteness (average eliteness similar to other elves). I would claim that currently average eliteness is roughly same across all elf armies, so this statement means that there should be no meaningful eliteness-creep happening during this redesign. And this in turn means that if there are requests to make DE army more tanky (e.g. plate armour on elite infantry) then this would have to be compensated elsewhere, because otherwise we have an eliteness-creep.
    Where would you like to see such reduction? Damage output? Speed? Discipline?
    This is relevant information that rules team need to make the correct decisions here.

    Display Spoiler
    My personal view on this, which is not fully rooted in rules team yet, is that HBE should move towards being the most defensive-minded elf army. They would trade damage output for tankyness. DE should be focused on offense and have the mindset: "if I kill you before you attack, then I don't need much armour"

    As other ppl pointed out, guidelines seem to picture DE as BH or orcs. Staight ahead go in, if that is so, i want dark eldar few editions away, when they were able to charge in first round. Mby charging after vanguard? Making dark riders interrsting? Charge after scout? Mindless all in fast forward is not dark elven style. We can have “storm banner” stuff, some special covers, or just make DE more tricky in other way. Seems more suitable for MMU MSU style. Not avoidance, just some nice tricks what ratmen and goblins have. Assasins giving -1to hit. Smt.
  • fjugin wrote:

    It may also be relevant to consider the statement regarding eliteness (average eliteness similar to other elves). I would claim that currently average eliteness is roughly same across all elf armies, so this statement means that there should be no meaningful eliteness-creep happening during this redesign. And this in turn means that if there are requests to make DE army more tanky (e.g. plate armour on elite infantry) then this would have to be compensated elsewhere, because otherwise we have an eliteness-creep.
    Where would you like to see such reduction? Damage output? Speed? Discipline?
    This is relevant information that rules team need to make the correct decisions here.

    Of course a drastic eliteness creep is not desirable. But it might be unavoidable in the scope of a full army book redoo.
    Obviously we don't want anything drastic. But if it happens that there is an eliteness creep, it should be with the intention that the other elf armies are going to get similar treatment.

    Which is why you have to at least have a design direction for the other two books before having and ad-hok go at one book. I can't stress that enough with game design.

    The structure of redoing army books is not doing all 3 books at once, so the other 2 elf books will just have to wait.
    The feeling of eliteness might creep up, BUT the power level of the book is separate from the eliteness feeling. So there really shouldn't be a problem with a bit of waiting.
    Infernal Dwarves and DH have an elitenss discrepancy. But the power levels are balanced.
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    But if it happens that there is an eliteness creep, it should be with the intention that the other elf armies are going to get similar treatment.
    We actually have a clear intentions to not do things like this. Because
    1. We don't want the game to make sense only at some point in time in the distant future. We want each and every version of the game, at all instances in time, to make sense and be logically consistent. If dread elves are not supposed to be better trained or physically superior to other elves, then we don't want this to be the case in the game for X years.
    2. We are generally happy with the overall state of the game. Being able to make these kinds of comparison towards current state of the game makes it easier to keep the game roughly the same, and thus we can have some level of control over various creeps int he game. Without this I have no doubt that we would see an overall eliteness creep across all books.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • Regarding axiliarys:



    Let’s give them Mini-Spears ie Bayonets!


    Basically spears with no fight in extra rank..

    And losing parry in the same moment?

    If range of shooting is reduced AND the price can´t be decreased significantly (to the level of legionaires without spear + small points for the XB), then nobody will use them, much as it is now.

    Currently the CB auxiliarys are spears without the discount, making them superexpensive in comparison for realy small output on range.
    Much the same is true for current corsairs. No discount on starting size, and very expensive weapon upgrades.

    In current book there is a 4+ AS in Core, on the corsairs. Does this mean corsairs will be kicked out of core, or get a nerf?
  • My generic overall impression:

    The guidelines offer space for creative ways of mitigating ranged damage. (This has been the Achilles of this army). This is fantastic, as I figured armor would not be part of the solution I have faith Adt will come up with some great, thematic solutions to mitigate a reasonable amount of damage. Of course pricing is all but everything in the balancing aspect.

    My impression of marching forward with little lateral movement is somewhat concerning to me. I’m of the impression all elves should have a reasonable amount of mobility, and I want to avoid a mindless marching forward similar to how much of WDG are played. I play almost exclusively for the tactical exercise and so this may carry a heavy bias!

    Lastly, the room for expansion on monster theme is the most emotionally exciting for me. I love monsters so again, I’m biased! I’ve always pictured dread elves more capable of fielding monsters as they are enslavers so they see them as tools, not trained pets or animals.


    Hopefully this is the style of feedback needed!
  • I don't really post here, but I do hang around reading stuff in breaks at work.

    I'm also not the best player so I try to avoid commenting on rules changes. That said I think the feedback you're asking for here is more whether this sounds like the army I'd like DE to be conceptually, rather than if I see it working in practice.

    Overall, I quite like the guidelines. MSU/MMU CC infantry with a heavy first turn impact is what I wanted from the army.

    Monsters being forced in to service fits as well.

    My only concern is that the design goals as stated might turn the army in to a "rush up the board in to combat immediately" army, which isn't really what drew me to it.

    Other than that though, it seems to capture the overall theme of the army, which is good.

  • berti wrote:

    Regarding axiliarys:

    And losing parry in the same moment?
    LOL! My bad i should have qualified that...but yes good pick up!

    Bayonet:
    Two Handed. Attacks made with a Bayonet gain +1 Armour Penetration. Attacks made by a Bayonet gain +1 Ag and an additional +1 Armour Penetration in the First Round of Combat provided the unit is not engaged in it's Flank or Rear Facing. Models on foot wielding a Bayonet gain Parry.

    There now pick it apart!
  • DarkSky wrote:

    noir wrote:

    Are you okay with the guidelines on regards to armour?
    I don't think you can answer something like that for itself.Do the guide lines make sense in regards to armour: Yes, they do.
    Can they work towards a balanced, but also innovative book: Yes, they can.

    But as said before, the guide lines basically rule out a lot of stuff that could be used to mitigate ranged damage. The only thing in there is "(very) short ranged protection". The fragility of the army when it comes to shooting is one of the, if not the thing, that most players disliked. So, the real answer to your question is:

    "Yes, if the problem of ranged damage mitigation is solved otherwise."

    and to be honest, the guide lines do not leave exactly a wide design space for that, especially when it states, that DE should have additional special rules for CC protection, which in turn makes the models more expensive, which in turn means easier to shoot down.
    This is a very good answer to my question I think. It refers to the guideline and doesn’t go into specific design details.

    @all
    Do you agree with this Statement by darky?
  • KiRaHyuU wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    @KiRaHyuU wouldn't that change the XBow category Repeater XBows are in? Namely light crossbows which would the go against the concept of mobility and rate of fire.
    I have no idea what your talking about...nothing new***
    I am talking about your suggestion to add CC elements to the XBow. Repeater XBow is a type of light crossbow which allowed the user greater mobility and rate of fire compared to standard and heavy crossbows. So if you want to add weight/size to the weapon in the form of CC elements we would be need to look how it influences the mobility and rate of fire of the user. Though the rate of fire would not be difficult to maintain the weapon would become just as unwieldy as a standard crossbow at which point the whole idea of the light crossbow falls flat.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • Giladis wrote:

    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    @KiRaHyuU wouldn't that change the XBow category Repeater XBows are in? Namely light crossbows which would the go against the concept of mobility and rate of fire.
    I have no idea what your talking about...nothing new***
    I am talking about your suggestion to add CC elements to the XBow. Repeater XBow is a type of light crossbow which allowed the user greater mobility and rate of fire compared to standard and heavy crossbows. So if you want to add weight/size to the weapon in the form of CC elements we would be need to look how it influences the mobility and rate of fire of the user. Though the rate of fire would not be difficult to maintain the weapon would become just as unwieldy as a standard crossbow at which point the whole idea of the light crossbow falls flat.
    You 2 again are talking about design specifics. This is not what was asked for here and thus does not help getting feedback on the actual guidelines. Please stop it and discuss via pm.
  • @Giladis please familiarise yourself with the guidelines especially under the shooting part where it states our shooting units shouldn’t shy away from combat and be decent in combat AND no I don’t count 1 str3 os4 attack as decent.

    Please also do some research regarding the weight of a Bayonet and it’s stress on firearms....oh and I’m so sorry but doesn’t B.1.2 state DE have high quality equipment? So please spare me...on Elves not being able to fix a bayonet on a crossbow as breaking the realms of realism.
  • Comments inside in bold:

    fjugin wrote:

    Here is the first version of the guidelines:

    Display Spoiler

    Dread Elves Army Book Design Guideline

    General Information
    This guideline is meant to convey a common understanding of how the project envisions the Dread Elves (DE) army book to be designed. This document is split into several parts, and below you find a short description about every layer:
    • Game Level: Racial aspects - what does it mean to be an elf / dwarf / undead / ... (these are shared between armies and create a background link between different factions of the same race without diluting the uniqueness of the specific armies); in this layer racial descriptions can be found which are shared among different books.
    • Army Level: Overarching army specific aspects shared by most units - these traits should actively be incorporated in as many units as possible. Furthermore basic equipment and weaponry are defined as well as play styles which should be actively supported by the army book designers.
    • Intra-Army Level 1: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise and require different design profiles to be captured adequately.
    • Intra-Army Level 2: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise but are already covered by higher level design layers (these themes are within the already existing Guidelines but make out an important part of the appeal and uniqueness of any given book and therefore deserve special attention. Note: This layer should be actively expanded during the conceptual phase of the book.
    Note: The design layers follow the principle of Lex specialis derogat legi generali meaning that in the case of contradicting guidelines the more specific takes precedence.

    A. Game Level Design Guidelines
    A.1 Racial Background Description - Elves
    Elves are generally considered elite troops which are skilled, fast, disciplined and have (in-line with other elfs) low resilience. DE differentiate themselves from other elves through close quarter oriented bloodlust and should have rules that support doing damage at close quarters.

    Just having rules for doing damage won't cut it. DE needs to be better at dealing damage in close combat than other elves on a per point basis, or it won't actually feel like they're better in this way.



    B.1 Army Composition
    The army consists of a mix of infantry, cavalry, chariots and monstrous units and should generally convey a feeling of a very militaristic race. It is the most close combat specialist army of the elfs, centred around R&F close combat elf units which are supported by mobile short short-ranged shooting, and by single-model and small shock troops. The army should be very good at playing MMU / MSU with R&F troops (and less emphasis on light troops and skirmishers which are supporting elements). R&F (esp. close combat) troops are very important for DE and are the backbone of the army.

    When i read 'militaristic race', i think 'these guys are professionals with extensive training, not civilians pressed into combat'. Which means even the core should be high quality. Like, ~2nd after WDG in terms of eliteness for core. (Making that happen with R3 is going to be fun). Certainly more elite than HbE or SE core.


    The army should feel brutal, ruthless, cunning and makes most of its points in close quarter fights.

    The monstrous parts of the book are close combat oriented units. Slaves are used in an economic context and do not partake in regular battles.

    Main play styles use small- or mid-sized infantry combat oriented blocks, with support from shooting and/or single models or small shock troops (e.g. cavalry). Viable playstyles could also be where the monster-component of this set-up is increased and does a significant part of the heavy lifting.

    Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle.


    Cavalry at least used to be a supported playstyle before. Is that no longer the case?


    B.1.2 Common Equipment
    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    This is kind of meaningless, knowing plate armor is off the table. We have the same equipment pretty much everyone else has. (LA/HA + normal weapon choices).



    The standard small arms fire weapon of this army is the repeater crossbow which has proven its use as an efficient tool to stifle slave revolts due to the ability to fire a high amount of shots in a short timeframe.

    This makes no sense in the context of a militaristic race. You don't take your slave suppression system and deploy it on the battlefield. If anything, you take your battlefield system and deploy it to suppress slaves.



    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Being an elven race the army can generally be described as very elite. Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army. Note that DE use their slaves only for their economy and not in battle.

    'not non-existent'... ?



    This should have the following in-game impact; models should have high average eliteness, and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf army. Overall dread elves should not feel more or less elite than other elves.

    I'd say DE should feel more elite for close combat purposes, and less elite at shooting, than other elves. HE uses militias, and SE is a hunter-gatherer society - a militaristic society should be better trained for warfare.



    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is 750 points instead of 1000).


    FWIW, i'm not sure point values are the right way to think about this, because 1000 points of elite DE infantry are not going to be 'deathstar' level resilient. 30-model TG and DJs are probably fine, even if they are over 750 points, because killing elves is pretty easy. The current book allows 50-model legionnaires, and those are significantly more durable than 30-model elite infantry (since they're about as easy to kill).


    B.2 Special Deployment
    Special deployment is not an important strategy for the army. A few units with special deployment rules (vanguard, scout, ambush etc) could exist, especially where this is normal for the type of unit (e.g. “fast cav”). Make sure army is no where close to being top 5 in this regard. Here number of units with access to this is important, but also the availability of these units, as well as how impactful those units are. Special deployment should be on few units and only on units with small game impact.


    So, DE is a faction whose main interaction with the rest of the world is piracy, and special deployment isn't supposed to be a feature? What? Wasn't the fluff blurb from the 2.0 update on DE all about striking from the shadows and attacking suddenly?


    B.3 Movement
    Typical elf speeds with a special emphasis on playing aggressively towards the enemy and enabling close quarter fights. I.e. charge range and speed forward towards the enemy should be more emphasized than lateral movement.

    Lateral movement is decent in (some) shooty units, but limited in combat units. Combat units are primarily ranked up blocks with limited maneuverability. Full on avoidance armies should not be possible. For this reason combat units with fly are limited in numbers, speed and game-impact (i.e. avoid expanding on flyers when updating the book).

    B.4 Leadership
    Leadership on troops is above game-wide average but not as good as dwarves, i.e. basic elven discipline where most units have dis8 and a few elite units have dis9.

    Dread elves have strong leaders with top-tier commanding presence abilities. General and BSB are helpful but not required (which is important to enable CC centric MMU / MSU builds), i.e. players are rewarded for keeping units inside discipline bubble, but having some units outside should not be impossible.

    This doesn't feel possible under the current general game rules. BSB is pretty much required.



    The army should feel disciplined and militarily organised.


    Why not make DE the universal Dis 9 elf army then? Yeah, that's the same as dwarves, but so what? You want to convey disciplined and militarily organized in excess of their elf brethren, it's pretty much the only thing you can do. Because 'basic elf discipline' but 'feel disciplined and militarily organized' are a direct contradiction - it won't feel disciplined and militarily organized when its exactly the same as all the other elves.


    B.5 Magic
    DE focus on a strong offensive casting - both ranged damage as well as CC support. DE spells have high in-game impact and they have above average capabilities to get the spells they want through enemy magic defense.

    Ranged damage and hexes followed by augments are the primary magical tools used in warfare. They are good at casting spells, but there should not be tools beyond the ones the BRB offers to defend against enemy casting.

    Path access should be the same as in current book.


    B.6 Shooting
    Shooting is a supporting tool which generally is mobile and short-ranged. All weapons should have clearly below average range for their types. The task of the shooting is to support the close combat part of the army. Whereas bolt throwers are the only truly stationary element of a DE military they serve in conjunction with the mobile hunting chariots a crucial purpose - offering ranged support against high priority threats which are generally harder to engage with rank and file close combat troops due to their lack of manoeuvrability.

    I mean, we've known this was coming, so fine.



    DE shooters generally must get close and personal to fully utilize their shooting capabilities. Shooting units should not break the overall combat focus of the army. This is achieved by shooters being decent close combat units that don't shy away from charging if the opportunity arises. This could be represented for instance by above average access to melee weaponry on shooting units, or by the nature of the units themselves (e.g. shooty chariots).

    Or just making the shooting weapons an option of the regular infantry?



    Shooting should be supporting the close combat elements of the book - a shooting avoidance play style similar to SE should not be possible. Similarly, gunline playstyles cannot be possible playstyle for this army as it uses shooting only as a supporting tool, not as main damage dealers.

    Shooting for this army should have the following themes clearly represented;
    • short ranged,
    • maneuverable,
    • high volume of mediocre* shots, and
    • units can enter combats
    *this means average or below average aim, strength and ap for the weapon’s type, but average or above average number of shots for the weapon’s type.


    ...



    You can't make shooting weapons much shorter range than everyone else, and then also make them average or worse compared to the weapons that significantly outrange them. Especially not when you have to pay for an elf to carry it. Shorter range weapons have to be better than comparable longer range alternatives.


    Also, didn't the guidelines just say DE shouldn't be very maneuverable?

    B.7 Close Combat
    As the CC specialists among the three elf races, DE offers a wide variety of close combat troops (shock troops / troops for prolonged combats / specialised troops intended for specific targets). DE have easy access to CC centric special rules as well as above average elf level CC stats (remeber that the average elf should not be more elite, so increase in combat abilities need to be compensated elsewhere).
    Elf and non-elf (beasts and monsters) can all be divided into one of these 3 categories.

    • Shock troops are frontload focused units. They have rules which support a peak damage output in the first round of combat or when charging (hatred, battle focus in the first round of combat, etc.). These troops are typcially not able to sustain prolonged fights either because of their lack in defensive capabilities (glass cannons) or because of the significant drop in damage in subsequent rounds of combat (e.g. chariots).


    • Grinding units. Primarily CC academy units, who due to their inter-unit-synergies and higher body count, are especially well equipped for prolonged combats as they offer a continuous source of damage with the ability to sustain damage to a higher degree. These units should have smaller focus (if any) on higher damage output first turn of combat, and instead use more even damage output. Note that these are decent grinding units in an elven context. Next to a dwarf units they should still feel fragile.


    • Close combat specialists are troops which excel against dedicated targets but which are not able to exercise their full potential against other troops. Specialised troops reward players who create situations where they are fighting what they are meant to fight.


    As the most close combat specialist elf army, DE need to offer a wide spectrum of different close combat units which enable players to tailor their playstyle around the flavour of close combat unit that they prefer. The army must not feel one-dimensional in regards to its close combat options (e.g. not only glass cannon units) and the close combat units should have an explicitly different in-game role/feeling to them.


    B.8 Defensive Capabilities
    Elves are limited to resilience 3, and don’t use much of armour (eg plate). Monstrous and mounted units may have higher resilience, but should not have above average for their types. The army should feel elven, and low resilience and overall fragile troops helps with this.

    Although the troops are elite and generally well equipped for their respective troop type, armour is often not a major defensive tool for non-mounted troops. Armour should be average or below average, no where near top5, but also not bottom5 in the game. Avoid enabling the following:
    - Good armour in core (e.g. 4+ infantry, 2+ save cavaly)
    - Very easy access to 1+ save on characters
    - Close to whole armies with 2+ save

    So superior equipment (above), but average or below average? What?



    Also, current DE book, if it isn't bottom 5 in armor now, is pretty darn close. Making it worse (stripping the possibility of a 4+ core infantry unit) is going to land DE in the bottom 5 (or close enough to be academic).


    DE defensive abilities are often tailored to their close quarter fighting theme. For example close combat centric special saves and avoiding to-be hit at (very) short range or in close combat could be themes for DE defensive capabilities. Any defensive capabilities above normal elven standards should clearly follow this theme.

    DE should have weak protection against long ranged weaponry, which contributes to the inherent feeling that players actively want to play aggressively towards the enemy - furthermore the defensive capabilities tailored to close quarter fights create an additional incentive to play aggressively. Although the army has above elf-average defensive capabilities in close quarters, this does not mean that it is top tier tanky in game wide terms.

    B.9 Chaff
    DE have average chaff. This means that a typical DE army should not have exceptional amounts of chaff, nor exceptionally optimal chaff. Avoid (true) chaff in core (170+pts fast cav is not considered "true chaff"). Avoid making special chaff too focused on chaffing. Compared to old book this means we should not make harpies into a more optimal choice as pure chaff. Give harpies some alternative roles to make sure they donät become optimal as only chaff.

    Agree with earlier comments. Close combat armies should have better chaff (efficiency) than ranged armies.



    B.10 Synergies
    Synergies which support the close quarter fighting nature is a defining trait of the army. Synergies in general should support the MMU/MSU play style which tends to play wide. Synergies should be seen as a tool to incorporate important background driven subthemes for the army's identity in the book.

    Synergies must not enable the creation of powerful deathstars. This can be achieved by limiting the base power of units, and/or limiting the amount of stacking of synergies that can be done.


    Feels like this push to play wide conflicts with the desire for DE to benefit (pretty substantially) from a Dis bubble.



    There are three main providers of synergies:

    B.10.1 Inter-unit-synergies - Academy
    Academy units are troops which are trained to fight together in order to maximise their potential. This background interaction should be translated into inter-unit-synergies in the book. I.e. Academy synergies should amplify academy units efficiency and showcase that they have tried together.


    B.10.2 Synergy providing models: Cults
    The providers of cult-related synergies is religious symbols (shrines, priests, supernals etc) that improve religious conviction of the followers, or provide some sort of divine intervention. In game, this is represented by cult-related symbols providing buffs to their or nearby units.
    Each cult should offer a unique twist representing its background and defining the corresponding cult troops in their nature. Beyond providing synergies to followers of the same God, what cult someone belongs to should have very small, if any, game impact. I.e. the importance of cults in-game should be scaled down compared to the old book. Note that cults should only spread these synergies to followers of the same cult.

    I'm not sure I like this direction. I mean, maybe it'll work, but this feels like it's tying the LAB team's hands on possible design directions before any work has been done.



    B.10.3 Movement and discipline: Monster handlers
    The interaction between monstrous units and their handlers. Note that the DE society is the most warfare focused elf society in the T9A setting. The degree of formalised military training, its economic implication (raiding/slavery) and the spiritual diversity (cults) offer unique opportunities to incorporate synergistic elements in the army. This source of synergy should showcase handlers’ abilities to control monsters, primarily repressed by increased discipline- and movement-related capabilities.

    This raises the question why other armies don't require 'handling' for their monsters. You can't make DE better at it by making them worse at it than everyone else. I mean, if this is just a description of current beastmaster, then sure?



    C. DE Intra Army Level 1 - sub-factions
    All entries in the dread elf army can be divided into one of the following sub-factions;

    C.1 Cults
    In-game, cult troops differentiate themselves primarily through the synergy providing models.
    Note that the importance of cults in-game should be scaled down compared to old book.

    C.2. Academy units
    The bulk of most elf armies. Most core units are academy units. In-game, academy units differentiate themselves primarily through the inter-unit synergies.

    C.3. Monsters and handlers
    All kinds of captured and trained monsters and beasts. Ridden, unridden, herded, in units, and so on. This is an area where the book should be expanded. The inclusion of monsters and beasts should be a defining trait that makes DE stand out from other elf armies. However, be careful to not create overlap with units existing in other elf armies, as this is intended to differentiate de from other elf armies. Think about how to make room in the book for this area to be expanded.

    In addition to monsters and beasts, de also have capturers and controllers of said monsters. There are two separate entities. Capturers specialize in seeking and incapacitate beasts. Controllers specialize in making sure already captured and trained beasts perform as intended on the battlefield. Sometimes controllers and beasts are combined into a single model, such as a ridden beast.


    But this makes me worry relative to the above. Why don't other armies have problems controlling their beasts? How does making DE worse at it (with the possibility to correct for it) showcase how they're better at it?


    Note that captured sentient beings do not belong in this category, as they would be slaves and not used on the battlefield.

    C.4. Corsairs
    A small separate sub-faction. Should have limited number of different units (e.g. 1.-2 units). Corsairs should have clearly different roles than any of the other subaction’s units.

    Small? DE armies will generally be deployed by ship, and the fleet is likely a substantial fraction of DE military might. Fleet units should be a significant component of the army. I'd rather see fleet units developed than cults or monsters in the main book. This is a pretty core army-identity component.

    What this description seems to be missing is a description of what DE are, as a society and as a military. I think it would be pretty obvious that some of the guidelines don't help achieve a representation of DE's background if the nature of DE as a military force was laid out in backround terms. That disjunction is going to become increasingly glaring.
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Folomo wrote:

    A bayonet on a 1 handed weapon should not be better than a regular sword (or two regular swords if you have a pair).
    On a 2 handed long weapon, such as a rifle, a bayonet could work similar to a spear (but shouldn't be better than a spear).
    I have posted up rules for a “possible” Bayonet.

    Side note, the Spear in our core rule book is one handed, so not being able to use a Bayonet in conjunction with a Shield is a substantial trade-off so it does not necessarily have to be worse than a Spear.
  • I am sure it is realy tricky and difficult to add more CC power to the DE shooters, to make them viable with shorter range.
    Only way is in my opinion to reduce point costs per model (giving a discount as on spears) and price the additional rX bow pretty with pretty low points.

    I also doubt that it makes sense to make shooters better in CC than the regular non shooting CC units, and currently there is not much difference. Just an to expensive shooting weapon where you can change something. Because I would not like an increase in CC power on normal "core troops", at least not a significant one.

    In addition I think that at the moment you get, non conditional, better protection against ranged damage, the CC output has to be decreased that some of the units can deliver. (judges and tower guard).
    And I don´t like the yema dancers at all, pretty much a unit that could be sacrificed to reflect the cults (together or merged with blades of nabh) instead of having cults attached to a lot of units. (if there have to be different cults).
  • It is mentioned that academy units have some special rule. Auxiliaries are academy troops. They don't need any special crossbow that provides close combat benefits. The increased combat power can come from the academy rules.

    Auxiliaries alone are not improved in close combat. That is even already part of their name, Auxiliaries. But maybe if they are involved in the same close combat as another academy unit like Legionnairs, the Auxiliaries might get some kind of bonus. For example allow reroll charge distance, reroll failed to hits or something.

    Auxiliaries could also stand and shoot when other academy unit getting charged, if they are in 12".

    Those are only examples what could be a tool to improve the cc effect of auxiliaries.

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